Skip to main content

SummerSlam question

Got a question for the blog here from one of my favorites, Stuart Chartock.

1) What do you think the "Summerslam" buy-rate will be? ( History: http://www.thecoli.com/threads/wwf-e-ppv-buys-from-1985-to-2012.6747/ )

2) Are you more looking forward to Cena/Bryan or Punk/Brock?

3) Do you expect either of those matches to hit, say, four-and-a-half stars or better?

4) Completely subjectively, which of those two matches do you think will be more responsible for the buy-rate? As in, which match do you think the majority of the audience is most looking forward to?


1. Meh, I think it'll be the same. Perhaps a 5% increase.

2. Cena vs Bryan. Cena is amongst some top company. He's one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, and I refuse to hear otherwise. He always delivers. His match with Bryan is going to have the crowd on fire, and should be on the level of Cena/Punk from MiTB, on both a drama & workrate scale.

3. I fully expect Cena/Bryan to be 5 stars. As for Punk v Lesnar, yeah, about the same. Punk is a brilliant guy in the ring, and I think he'll workout something very special with Brock.

4. I say Cena vs Bryan. Because everyone is rooting for Bryan. It's as organic a rise to the top as Punk's was. People really want to see this guy win. I can't wait.

Comments

  1. I thought Cena/Bryan had a better shot at cracking five snowflakes before the guest referee involvement. The match will still be excellent, but I see it possibly being overbooked towards the end with HHH's involvement. Although Punk/Cena at MITB 2011 got a bit angle-heavy towards the end, and it still managed to be a classic. But the Summerslam rematch (with HHH as special referee) disappointed a lot of people, since there was some focus on HHH, in addition to the problem that all special referee matches have: the nearfalls are never as hot because the special ref is always out of position, or doesn't know how to make a proper count. It messes with the flow of the match, although HHH is admittedly a better special referee than most. But I'm still not confident the match will be as good as it would have been without a special referee.

    ReplyDelete
  2. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryAugust 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

    As much as I hate the involvement of HHH (although I still though Cena/Punk 2 was plenty awesome despite it), just reading reminded me why I'm shelling out $100 and taking an 8-hour train ride to SoCal for this

    ReplyDelete
  3. Was gonna get some tickets to the show. Buuuut, I had already bought tickets to the house show the following week down here in San Diego. Front row seats for the first time.

    So I guess I'll be watching Summerslam from the comfort of my living room.

    Good call?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that the buyrate will be around the same as last year. I know for me, personally, last year was the first year I'd bought SummerSlam since 2001 or 2002 (I also attended the event in 2007), as I was really excited for Brock/HHH, Jericho/Ziggler, and I was all in to Punk's title reign. This year, I'm totally hooked on buying the show again for the top two matches, just like everyone else.
    As for which of those top two matches will be better, I'd say the safer bet is Punk/Brock, only because Cena's injury is such a wildcard. As discussed in a previous thread, they may cut the match short, do a longer cash-in match with Bryan and Orton, and not even get the opportunity to get anywhere close to *****. Hope I'm wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whilst I'm looking forward to Punk/Lesnar, Bryan/Cena is the reason I'm buying... it's the 2013 version of MITB 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All I know is if it tanks, it's HHH's fault. If it's good, it was in spite of HHH.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cena and Bryan had an EXCELLENT match on RAW that's never talked about. I can see this match be a classic but I don't think it'll be better than Punk/Cena only because Cena's elbow is banged the fuck up supposedly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good god almighty that Wrestlemania XIX buyrate is ugly. Like reeeeal ugly. What is going on there? That card was STACKED: Austin / Rock 3, Hogan / McMahon, HBK / Jericho, Angle / Brock, and they take the Mania buyrate back to pre-attitude era levels?

    Also (I'm guessing it's due to the expansion of ppv availability from 87-88), it's funny / sad that Wrestlemania IV has more buys than the legendary Wrestlemania III.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Try watching RAW/Smackdown from mid 2002-early 2003 and it will be very apparent. Just awful television, despite the good card that mostly delivered.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No way Cena/Bryan is *****, there is way too much BS surrounding the match. And don't mention that McMahon was involved in Punk/Cena at MitB, it's way different here. Not trying to sound negative but we'll be luck if its over ****....just my opinion....

    ReplyDelete
  12. If you scroll down the thread, a dude says this:

    "Wrestlemania 19: 560,000

    First digital cable only PPV. As in you could order it ONLY IF you had a digital cable box."



    Makes more sense than the product being terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks boss I appreciate that piece of information.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Despite the fact that WM 4 did more buys than WM 3, WM 3 did more money in PPV numbers.


    Keep in mind at this point, PPV was growing rapidly. There was only 4 million households carrying PPV at the time of WM 3. That means that they took 10% of the households for one night. An insane feat really.

    ReplyDelete
  15. others reply on the next page that they were getting PPV's on regular boxes until 2004-2005 so im not sure if that's the whole story.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yea, I was reading that but the whole process from switching to digital took a year's time to fully develop

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1) Don't really care about buyrate... but this will be in line with other Summerslams of late

    2) I guess I'll have to say Cena/Bryan because the booking intrigues me more... even though I like both guys in the Punk/Lesnar match than I do in the Cena/Bryan match.


    3) Cena/Bryan has a better shot at a higher rating because both guys deliver when it is time to deliver... and I don't think Cena's pride will let his injury slow him down. I can't really explain why, but I feel like the chemistry for Punk/Brock won't be as good as we are hoping for, it will still be good but I doubt it will be as epic as it should be... and I think Brock is over rated n the ring.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why do wrestling fans care so much about PPV buyrates and TV ratings? If you went to a Gray's Anatomy message board, people wouldn't be like, "Last night's episode was awesome, but what were the Nielsen ratings?" Or go to an NFL message board and nobody is saying, "Can't wait for this season to start. How many people do you think are going to buy NFL Sunday Ticket?" Unless you're worried about RAW getting canceled or WWE going out of business, why does it matter as a fan?

    ReplyDelete
  19. To me, a big buy-rate is like watching a guy get a standing ovation or win an award. Almost akin to an actor you like being recognized with an Emmy or Oscar. It's just a nice pat on the back, saying "hey, so-and-so is doing a great job".


    I mean, let's pretend that "Summerslam" does a really big buy-rate, like, I dunno, a 25%+ increase. Wouldn't it be nice for Bryan to be credited for that?


    Plus, I thought it'd be fun to do another buy-rate prediction thread/game.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Never heard/thought about the digital-only reason. I've always credited the horrid buy-rate to how terrible "Raw" was at the time, but that makes more sense - even with the poor programming at the time, the card was STACKED, and should have done better (much like how "WM" still does a great rating now despite the low TV ratings).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yeah, but you never know exactly why a show does a big buyrate unless you poll the buyers. SummerSlam could do very well because of Bryan, or it could be due to Cena, or it could be Brock-Punk, or it could be Triple H, or the combination of both main events, or the mystery of the MITB cash-in, or because there's no major sporting event to compete with it this Sunday ...
    It seems to me that the interest in buyrates and ratings is a leftover byproduct of the WWF-WCW wars, but it's not like WWE has competition like that anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  22. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryAugust 14, 2013 at 12:26 PM

    I dunno; house shows are fun, but that crowd is gonna be ELECTRIC for the big two matches at SS.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I wish this could be auto-posted as a response any time someone brings this issue up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is what I was thinking when people complained in the Smackdown thread about them putting RVD/Orton and Christian/Del Rio on free TV. They were complaining that they didn't have to pay for pay per view quality matches. Wha?

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's impressive... but not for the reason you're highlighting (10% PPV audience).


    It's impressive because I'd bet the MAJORITY of that 10% got PPV primarily (if not only) for WWF events at that time.


    They get at least half of the credit (along with boxing before its fall from the mainstream eye) for helping make PPV a viable model.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sports fans obsess over ratings and movie fans obsess over box office all the time

    ReplyDelete
  27. Duh. Because the point of Pro Wrestling is to MAKE MONEY. Other sports... that is secondary to the actual game being played. In Pro Wrestling, you can deliberately position your product to MAKE MONEY. So of course buy rates matter... if they go down, then something needs to change in the product. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  28. While you'd never know EXACTLY why, it's easy to narrow down a few potential reasons - I mean, I don't think you could realistically conclude that Natalya/Brie would be a major contributing factor, ya know?

    ReplyDelete
  29. So if you work for WWE, obviously you'd be focused on ratings and buyrates. But as a fan? You're not making any of that PPV money.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not really. The day after the Super Bowl there are some news stories about the TV ratings, but they're usually a throwaway pieces or sidebars at best.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, really. Football is more Teflon because the ratings are always big, but I always hear fans discussing or pouring over ratings for big sports events

    ReplyDelete
  32. I hear it mentioned in passing a day or two after a big game, like, "Oh by the way, Game 7 drew six million viewers." Or maybe it'll be mentioned if it sets some kind of record. But BEFORE a big game, I don't hear any fans wondering/guessing exactly how many people are going to watch and what the Nielsen number will be.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment