WWE Monday Night RAW Forums

Monday 8:00 PM on USAIn Season

PPV Buyrates Thread

  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [141]Sep 3, 2010
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    PWTorch wrote:
    WWE updated their monthly business report for investors yesterday with the preliminary PPV buy total for the debut edition of the Money in the Bank PPV in July.


    WWE is reporting two figures - 189,000 buys and 162,000 buys. We'll find out the official number this fall when WWE reports third quarter (July to September) earnings results.


    For comparison purposes, it's another "off-brand PPV" below 200,000 buys (charted below). Also the PPV performed well below the Night of Champions PPV that was slotted in July last year.


    WWE has rearranged the order and changed the names of PPV events over the last two years, especially in the June and July months. The following is a break down of PPV buys for June and July in 2008, 2009, and 2010.


    June 2008 - Night of Champions drew 273,000 buys. June 2009 - The Bash drew 178,000 buys. June 2010 - Fatal Four-Way drew 143,000 buys.


    July 2008 - Great Am. Bash drew 196,000 buys. July 2009 - NOC drew 267,000 buys. July 2010 - MITB drew 162-189,000 buys.


    Caldwell's Analysis: The positive take-away is MITB was up from the disastrously-low Fatal Four-Way PPV buys. But, not by much. Assuredly, WWE will claim they have market research indicating more people are gathering together for communal viewing with the PPV price up $5 this year, but I believe they're also pricing people out of the market at this point. The real test will be when the Summerslam results come in for August.


    Chart: The chart below shows the 2010 PPV buy totals trending at or below the 200,000 buy mark in the blue color line. The final dot is where the Money in the Bank PPV falls compared to previous July events.

    Edited on 09/03/2010 2:36pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [142]Oct 27, 2010
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    I'd like to see how they explain their way out of this one:


    PWinsider wrote:
    The early numbers for the 2010 WWE Night of Champions PPV are in and, once again, they are down from a year ago. The current numbers (which should rise somewhat) are 169,000 buys, down from 267,000. WWE will likely issue the final numbers with their quarterly report.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Deadnight-Majin

    Deadnight-Majin

    [143]Oct 27, 2010
    • member since: 04/18/08
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,128

    Someone who wrote in to pwinsider pointed out that Night Of Champions 2010 should be compared to Breaking Point 2009, not NOC 2009, since it's the September pay per view. Apparently the buy rates aren't much different from last year, I haven't checked though.



    I really need to stop standing up for WWE.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [144]Oct 27, 2010
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    You really should.


    Total Buys
    Night of Champions 2008 - 273,000
    Night of Champions 2009 - 267,000
    Night of Champions 2010 - 169,000

    Average Domestic Split
    NOC 2008 - 64 percent
    NOC 2009 - 57 percent
    NOC 2010 - 60 percent

    Average Domestic Buys
    NOC 2008 - 174,720
    NOC 2009 - 152,190


    NOC 2010 - 101,400 (down 41.9% vs. 2008 )


    Approximate Domestic Revenue (before cable split)
    NOC 2008 - $7.0 million
    NOC 2009 - $6.1 million
    NOC 2010 - $4.6 million (down 34.3% vs. 2008 )


    http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Torch_Feedback_17/article_44840.shtml

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hurricane1123

    Hurricane1123

    [145]Oct 27, 2010
    • member since: 09/07/06
    • level: 34
    • rank: Wardrobe Malfunction
    • posts: 11,634
    Yeah Breaking Point got a number similar to Night of Champions, still though that's not that good. Although the $5 price increase might have scared people away, your buyrates should not be stagnant.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [146]Nov 25, 2010
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    PWTorch wrote:
    WWE is reporting a preliminary average of 173,000 buys for the first two PPVs of the fourth quarter, Hell in a Cell and Bragging Rights.


    The Hell in a Cell PPV on Oct. 3 is listed for more than 200,000 buys. The reported figure for Bragging Rights on Oct. 24 is fewer than 150,000 buys. WWE's second PPV in October was the same weekend as UFC 121 featuring Brock Lesnar.


    WWE will distinguish the individual PPV buys when they report fourth quarter earnings in 2011. WWE updated their monthly business figures this week with the preliminary buys for the two October PPVs.


    ***


    The preliminary figure for Bragging Rights 2010 the PPV in the same category as Fatal Four-Way in June, which drew 143,000 buys. Looking at October PPVs, Cyber Sunday 2008 drew 153,000 buys and was replaced with Bragging Rights in 2009, which drew 181,000 buys.


    Hell in a Cell 2010 is below 283,000 buys for the 2009 version, but it could be financially even with No Mercy 2008, which drew 261,000 buys, factoring in the $5 price increase for domestic PPVs in 2010.


    ***


    The fourth quarter 2010 preliminary figure of 173,000 average buys is down from the 2009 and 2008 fourth quarter average of 232,000 buys. Not factored into the 2010 average is the preliminary figure for Survivor Series, which should raise the average as a Big Four PPV.


    Out of the average of 173,000 buys reported, WWE is reporting that 92,000 buys were domestic and 81,000 buys came from international sources.


    The domestic split is 53 percent compared to 55 percent in fourth quarter 2009 and 54 percent in fourth quarter 2010.


    Caldwell's Analysis: Poor Bragging Rights had no chance. The PPV was up against UFC 121, there was more buzz on Brock Lesnar vs. The Undertaker that weekend, Brett Favre and the Vikings were facing the Packers on prime time TV, WWE already presented Hell in a Cell the same month, and WWE failed to establish an organic rivalry between Raw and Smackdown.

    http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_45552.shtml-They really should just have 12 PPvs a year and with their 3 hour RAWs, make it like a COC thing.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Deadnight-Majin

    Deadnight-Majin

    [147]Nov 25, 2010
    • member since: 04/18/08
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,128

    Sorry if this seems somewhat irrelevant, but WWE need 2 things for more success in England:


    1) A TV deal with one of the main channels.


    All TV's now come with a basic digital package (that there is no charge for), and lots of people I know have got rid of their Sky boxes because of this.Even almost everyone I know who has Sky can't watch WWE as it's only available on channels which are featured in the sports package.


    2) Online pay per views. You can't order WWE pay per views online in England, again you need to have Sky.



    It's stupid. If it wasn't for online piracy, I literally wouldn't be able to watch WWE.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of enervator

    enervator

    [148]Nov 25, 2010
    • member since: 07/05/05
    • level: 38
    • rank: Squarepants
    • posts: 10,169

    Deadnight-Majin wrote:


    Sorry if this seems somewhat irrelevant, but WWE need 2 things for more success in England:


    1) A TV deal with one of the main channels.


    All TV's now come with a basic digital package (that there is no charge for), and lots of people I know have got rid of their Sky boxes because of this.Even almost everyone I know who has Sky can't watch WWE as it's only available on channels which are featured in the sports package.


    2) Online pay per views. You can't order WWE pay per views online in England, again you need to have Sky.



    It's stupid. If it wasn't for online piracy, I literally wouldn't be able to watch WWE.




    Is all that WWE's fault, or is it just the screwy international laws?

    I know how frustrating it is when someone outside the US posts a video, and when I try to click on it I get told that I can't see it in this country. It seems so silly to have those limitations these days.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Deadnight-Majin

    Deadnight-Majin

    [149]Nov 28, 2010
    • member since: 04/18/08
    • level: 18
    • rank: Land Shark
    • posts: 3,128

    enervator wrote:


    Deadnight-Majin wrote:


    Sorry if this seems somewhat irrelevant, but WWE need 2 things for more success in England:


    1) A TV deal with one of the main channels.


    All TV's now come with a basic digital package (that there is no charge for), and lots of people I know have got rid of their Sky boxes because of this.Even almost everyone I know who has Sky can't watch WWE as it's only available on channels which are featured in the sports package.


    2) Online pay per views. You can't order WWE pay per views online in England, again you need to have Sky.



    It's stupid. If it wasn't for online piracy, I literally wouldn't be able to watch WWE.




    Is all that WWE's fault, or is it just the screwy international laws?

    I know how frustrating it is when someone outside the US posts a video, and when I try to click on it I get told that I can't see it in this country. It seems so silly to have those limitations these days.


    WWE's fault for having a deal with Sky.


    Dragon Gate and Ring Of Honor broadcast their pay per views on Go Fight Live.com, and they are available for purchase all around the world. It seems crazy to me that the independent companies are so far ahead of WWE when it comes to this stuff.


    WWE's Youtube videos can't be viewed in England either.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hurricane1123

    Hurricane1123

    [150]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 09/07/06
    • level: 34
    • rank: Wardrobe Malfunction
    • posts: 11,634

    The Wrestlemania 27 buyrate was released recently and the WWE seems to be very happy with the strong number.


    1 042 000


    For comparison's sake, here are the previous year's buyrates...


    Wrestlemania 17 ($39.95) - 1040000


    Wrestlemania 18 ($39.95) - 840000


    Wrestlemania 19 ($39.95) - 563000


    Wrestlemania 20 ($49.95) - 888000


    Wrestlemania 21 ($49.95) - 988000


    Wrestlemania 22 ($49.95) - 958000


    Wrestlemania 23 ($49.95) - 1250000


    Wrestlemania 24 ($54.95) - 1058000


    Wrestlemania 25 ($54.95) - 960000


    Wrestlemania 26 ($54.95) - 885000


    __________________


    Pfft, WWE is dying my ass! Anyway, aside from WWE cashing in a large a paycheck on another successful Wrestlemania, buyrates are not really a good indicator of a great show. Wrestlemania 26 was a really good PPV yet got a low buyrate in comparison to some of the other Wrestlemanias. I thought this year's show was decent, but a definite letdown in comparison to how it looked on paper, probably not deserving of the million plus buyrate.

    Edited on 05/26/2011 3:55am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [151]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    Who said they were dying?


    Now that this host thing works, it might happen again.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ALLPR0

    ALLPR0

    [152]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 09/15/10
    • level: 12
    • rank: Evil Bert
    • posts: 740

    telvisnostic wrote:


    Who said they were dying?


    Now that this host thing works, it might happen again.


    Well the host thing only worked so well because it was the Rock. Like you said they'll probably do it again because Vince will always beat a horse until its well past dead, but who can they get to host after the Rock!?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Hurricane1123

    Hurricane1123

    [153]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 09/07/06
    • level: 34
    • rank: Wardrobe Malfunction
    • posts: 11,634
    telvisnostic wrote:

    Who said they were dying?


    Now that this host thing works, it might happen again.

    People on websites and other forums always complain that the WWE is going further and further down the toilet and how it's only a matter of time before they go out of business. Well with the WWE still doing buyrates like those and ratings that are still considered good for cable TV, I doubt it. Sometimes I really hate the internet for its excessive negativity. It's kind of unhealthy you know. :S
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [154]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    ALLPR0 wrote:
    telvisnostic wrote:
    Who said they were dying?Now that this host thing works, it might happen again.
    Well the host thing only worked so well because it was the Rock. Like you said they'll probably do it again because Vince will always beat a horse until its well past dead, but who can they get to host after the Rock!?
    I don't know, but here's hoping they don't even think about it.

    Edited on 05/27/2011 8:37am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [155]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    Hurricane1123 wrote:
    telvisnostic wrote:
    Who said they were dying? Now that this host thing works, it might happen again.
    People on websites and other forums always complain that the WWE is going further and further down the toilet and how it's only a matter of time before they go out of business. Well with the WWE still doing buyrates like those and ratings that are still considered good for cable TV, I doubt it. Sometimes I really hate the internet for its excessive negativity. It's kind of unhealthy you know. :S
    This is the only one over one million. The other PPVs keep having buyrates issues. It's an excess of the same thing too much so people will not watch, not to mention that it's $45 a pop for their 13 PPVs, which is now the bare minimum.


    It's not just the internet that say these things. Most businesses are having problems, so they cut things. They seem to refuse to cut the PPVs from 13 to at least 8.


    Excessive negativity is found everywhere. Just watching ESPN or regular news is a lot of negativity. I just tune it out half the time. I think it's the in thing now to just be negative about the product in excess. Being objective tends to get one in trouble.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of enervator

    enervator

    [156]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 07/05/05
    • level: 38
    • rank: Squarepants
    • posts: 10,169

    telvisnostic wrote:


    Hurricane1123 wrote:
    telvisnostic wrote:
    Who said they were dying? Now that this host thing works, it might happen again.
    People on websites and other forums always complain that the WWE is going further and further down the toilet and how it's only a matter of time before they go out of business. Well with the WWE still doing buyrates like those and ratings that are still considered good for cable TV, I doubt it. Sometimes I really hate the internet for its excessive negativity. It's kind of unhealthy you know. :S
    This is the only one over one million. The other PPVs keep having buyrates issues. It's an excess of the same thing too much so people will not watch, not to mention that it's $45 a pop for their 13 PPVs, which is now the bare minimum.


    It's not just the internet that say these things. Most businesses are having problems, so they cut things. They seem to refuse to cut the PPVs from 13 to at least 8.


    Excessive negativity is found everywhere. Just watching ESPN or regular news is a lot of negativity. I just tune it out half the time. I think it's the in thing now to just be negative about the product in excess. Being objective tends to get one in trouble.




    That's the thing. WM arguably got a boost because of people wanting to see the Rock. Specifically, wanting to see the Rock beat up Cena. Other than that, was there really anything special about the card? They expect people to shell out $50 a month to basically watch the same matches and the same feuds over and over, and some of these are matches we've already seen multiple times for free on Raw or Smackdown. They may not be in any immediate danger of shutting their doors, especially with no real competition out there, but they're also not putting out the quality of product they could and should probably expect their buyrates to continue to decline.

    Even as the number of PPVs my friends and I purchased dropped, as a rule we always got the Rumble and WM. Once in a blue moon we'd get one of the other ones, but it was accepted that we'd always be getting those two. This year we didn't, so I'm assuming that means we won't get a single WWE PPV in 2011. There just isn't enough worth watching to justify the price anymore.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [157]May 26, 2011
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    enervator wrote:
    That's the thing. WM arguably got a boost because of people wanting to see the Rock. Specifically, wanting to see the Rock beat up Cena. Other than that, was there really anything special about the card? They expect people to shell out $50 a month to basically watch the same matches and the same feuds over and over, and some of these are matches we've already seen multiple times for free on Raw or Smackdown. They may not be in any immediate danger of shutting their doors, especially with no real competition out there, but they're also not putting out the quality of product they could and should probably expect their buyrates to continue to decline.
    I think there were 4 good matches, 1 was just very well done. And you're right, it was The Rock that got a lot of fans to tune into it to shell out that much money. that also goes to show you how lacking in star power they are.


    It was I think $65 over here on DirecTV. We opted not to order it. they can't expect people to keep shelling out money for the other 11 PPVs not named Wrestlemania and Royal Rumble (those almost always just sell themselves). the other big 2, they don't seem to give a rat's ass anymore. Coupled with the other 9, what's the point of buying it if it's the SAME damn thing a lot of the time. I'm sure when they do their quarter revenue, there will be an excuse at to why they need so many again.


    :
    Even as the number of PPVs my friends and I purchased dropped, as a rule we always got the Rumble and WM. Once in a blue moon we'd get one of the other ones, but it was accepted that we'd always be getting those two. This year we didn't, so I'm assuming that means we won't get a single WWE PPV in 2011. There just isn't enough worth watching to justify the price anymore.
    A good friend of mine, who doesn't even watch the product anymore, was on the fence about buying those 2 PPVs. Those are the only two he buys anymore. I was surprised to know that he and his buds did get Wrestlemania.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of enervator

    enervator

    [158]May 27, 2011
    • member since: 07/05/05
    • level: 38
    • rank: Squarepants
    • posts: 10,169

    telvisnostic wrote:
    I think there were 4 good matches, 1 was just very well done. And you're right, it was The Rock that got a lot of fans to tune into it to shell out that much money. that also goes to show you how lacking in star power they are.


    The buildup is another problem they need to address. Based on the buildup, I expected nothing. When my friends, both of whom rarely if ever watch WWE these days, asked if it we should get it and if it was worth the money, I had to be honest and say absolutely not. I think Vince is counting on people just saying, "It's WrestleMania. Of course I'm going to get it." I'm not sure how long he can count on that. Up to this past year, my friends and I had the same attitude. Now that we've broken the chain, we may very well not get it next year, especially when they most likely jack up the price again.

    They got their boost from the Rock's appearance this year. They'll probably get it again next year, although some of the excitement over that match may fizzle by then. What happens after that?


    :
    It was I think $65 over here on DirecTV. We opted not to order it. they can't expect people to keep shelling out money for the other 11 PPVs not named Wrestlemania and Royal Rumble (those almost always just sell themselves). the other big 2, they don't seem to give a rat's ass anymore. Coupled with the other 9, what's the point of buying it if it's the SAME damn thing a lot of the time. I'm sure when they do their quarter revenue, there will be an excuse at to why they need so many again.


    They need to build these feuds and make people want to both tune in and pay a lot of money. At this point, even if someone sends me a link to a PPV stream I'm probably not going to watch. I'd really like to see them cut the PPV number down to six. Give about two months of buildup for each one, and use the PPVs to END feuds, like they used to. They never seem to end anymore, I guess at least partly because there's no one built up enough for someone to move on to. I'm sure Vince just likes the revenue coming in month after month, and yes, people are still getting the PPVs even if the buyrates aren't what they used to be. But when you figure how much is being spent to book an arena plus to pay and transport all the personnel, as well as the various means of advertising, that's got to cut a lot into the profits. In the long run it seems like it would be smarter and more profitable to have less PPVs that have been properly developed and built up to get a bigger audience than to have a ridiculous number of them that are just a few weeks apart in some cases and just keep giving the same matches over and over.


    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of telvisnostic

    telvisnostic

    [159]May 27, 2011
    • member since: 06/27/05
    • level: 52
    • rank: Guzzlefish
    • posts: 25,288

    enervator wrote:
    The buildup is another problem they need to address. Based on the buildup, I expected nothing. When my friends, both of whom rarely if ever watch WWE these days, asked if it we should get it and if it was worth the money, I had to be honest and say absolutely not. I think Vince is counting on people just saying, "It's WrestleMania. Of course I'm going to get it." I'm not sure how long he can count on that. Up to this past year, my friends and I had the same attitude. Now that we've broken the chain, we may very well not get it next year, especially when they most likely jack up the price again.


    They got their boost from the Rock's appearance this year. They'll probably get it again next year, although some of the excitement over that match may fizzle by then. What happens after that?

    The build-up for the main event annoyed me a bit. They seemed to flip flop and then realize that oops, the Miz has been treated like a piece of nothing, so let's do something a week or 2 before the big show. They way they booked him, it was like huh? I also think people tuned in because there was no PPV before Wrestlemania. It had an adequate and at times inadequate build for certain matches, but I think that's what brought some older fans back too.


    I'm not sure what they'll do after The Rock is gone. I'll assume he'll be on there the Monday after for one last appearance.


    :
    They need to build these feuds and make people want to both tune in and pay a lot of money. At this point, even if someone sends me a link to a PPV stream I'm probably not going to watch. I'd really like to see them cut the PPV number down to six. Give about two months of buildup for each one, and use the PPVs to END feuds, like they used to. They never seem to end anymore, I guess at least partly because there's no one built up enough for someone to move on to. I'm sure Vince just likes the revenue coming in month after month, and yes, people are still getting the PPVs even if the buyrates aren't what they used to be. But when you figure how much is being spent to book an arena plus to pay and transport all the personnel, as well as the various means of advertising, that's got to cut a lot into the profits. In the long run it seems like it would be smarter and more profitable to have less PPVs that have been properly developed and built up to get a bigger audience than to have a ridiculous number of them that are just a few weeks apart in some cases and just keep giving the same matches over and over.
    A PPV ending feud nowadays would be great. And using the Cage matches so flippantly needs to change as well. But that's another topic for another day. And that's what it comes down to, the build-up, the anticipation and promos, scripted or not that don't suck. Streams half the time when I watch them I just tune out most of the time because I'm watching an NFL, NCAA or NBA game. They need to do something about the other PPV. before saying this and that about their already all important show that just sells itself.


    I like 6 PPVs like you said. I'd use the COC (that's Clash of the Champions for some who don't know) as a template for their 3 hours shows they do throughout the year. Make them special.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of qfrodri85

    qfrodri85

    [160]May 27, 2011
    • member since: 06/13/05
    • level: 27
    • rank: Shark Jumper
    • posts: 11,091

    Thing with WWE is that every year their TV revenue increases despite the PPV revenue going down. And when you sum TV revenue with PPV revenue, both combined goes up every year. Last year, TV + PPV revenue was a bit over US $200 million IIRC. It's kind of odd, but it works for WWE.


    Plus, there's UFC and Boxing shows, which may draw more than the usual WWE PPV. They're as pricey as a WWE PPV, but it's real action and delivers for the most part.

    Edited on 05/27/2011 8:59pm
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.