Skip to main content


No, really, it is.  Extreme Rules did a shit buyrate in the US (about 39K) and it's becoming apparent that the WWE Network is effectively killing off the PPV model once and for all.  So basically they're all in with this model, like it or not.  The Network numbers released at the next conference are gonna be real interesting.  

Also, business has picked up on the blog tonight, so perhaps the feud has legs after all.  Although I'm amused by the guy in the comment section questioning my integrity when I got dragged into something that had nothing to do with me and I've been quite transparent about my desire to cash in on it the whole time.  

Credit:  PWInsider Elite section.


  1. Were they not expecting it to kill the PPV market? And why do we surmise that those who did legally purchase the PPVs pre-network, wouldn't now be network subscribers? I assume that's where the discrepancy in the numbers is. Is it that it's an internet network, and not truly on tv?
    Would they have more subscribers if it was on air with subscription, like HBO?

  2. We could talk about great gimmicks that strated out well, and then we're ruined due to injury or stupidity, all day.

    Waylon Mercy is one. Heel Doink is another.

  3. Was Waylon ever really "over" in the traditional, money-drawing or even "big reaction" sense? Or did he just have a smark/IWC following?

    I don't think he ever was really that over. But, think Waylon was just too high-concept for the idiot wrestling fanbase of the time (well, the fanbase at large has always been dumb, as demographics bear out, but you know what I mean). And he was never allowed to really cut loose in a family-entertainment promotion. He really needed to cripple some mid-card babyface, put them on a stretcher, and spark a feud, the way Doink immediately made a splash by taking out Crush.

    Also, this may sound minor, but I think he was undermined by Vince constantly calling him a "con man." That wasn't really his gimmick--I think he'd have been more interesting and more dangerous if he were portrayed as a guy who really thought he was nice and friendly, but was maiming jobbers left and right.

  4. There's nothing better than the last line in that post. ©Doctor_Ew

  5. I sent this question in because I just watched Waylon's Raw debut. I was aware of the character, but I never really saw him in action. A couple points regarding him: I think both Bray Wyatt and Bo Dallas owe him a debt of gratitude, Bray stole his look and general cult leader type vibe, and Bo stole his "I think I'm a nice guy, but I'm really not." attitude. Of course, he stole it from Deniro, but still. Secondly, how great would this gimmick have been during the Attitude Era? Also, why did it take them so long to try this gimmick again after Spivey left, it seems like a natural concept within a pro wrestling context. On a completely different side note, why the hell was the Bret Hart/Jerry Lawler 'Kiss My Foot' match hyped so incessantly in 1995? They will not shut up about it on Raw at the time, even when the match is long over. After watching all the hype you'd think Jerry Lawler's feet were the WWF champion. Maybe, because WWF New Generation era?

  6. Man, someone should make a Disqus account that exclusively posts content from PWInsider.

    I'm pretty shocked that so many people still decided to get he pay per view. I guess they have terrible internet connections or are confused by technology. Nobody would get Extreme Rules and not get at least one other show per 6 months, at which point the network would pay for itself.

  7. To be fair, even if the network didn’t exist I think they’d be having problems with PPV by now. Sure you could list a number of reasons why people aren’t buying the things, but there is one that really irks me and it is this:

    (Feel free to correct me here if I’m wrong about the current product BTW, I am a lapsed fan these days after all and only keep up via recaps and YouTube or cut down versions of the show...)

    From what I can tell, they just can’t shake this ‘heel authority figure’ schtick and I think a lot of people are tired of it - me included. It just seems like the babyfaces put up with the same old shit week in and week out, and when somebody does get a feelgood moment at a PPV you just know that in 24 hours it is going to mean ‘jack’ and ‘shit’, and that we’ll be back to the same old heel authority stuff as always. So why would anyone want to pay money for something that will most likely mean nothing in the grand scheme of the ‘story’? Have they not learned anything from Brock Lesnar? Absence means that when they do show up it actually means something and creates the 'moments' they seem to crave so much.

    In short: I think that the constant authority jizzfest smothers the product.

  8. Zanatude Enterprises Inc.June 27, 2014 at 2:22 AM

    If TNA reported their buyrates as a percentage of WWE buyrates, they would be showing tremendous improvement!

  9. 1995 WWF = Lawler's feet and Mabel's gut

  10. While McMahon vs. Austin was really did cause the perpetual authority figure storyline to be rehashed ad nauseum. So tired of it. Just book matches and make them mean something, and ranking system, SOMETHING.

  11. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJune 27, 2014 at 2:58 AM

    I was tired of the heel authority figure in 2003. They don't need it and yet we'll probably never have a WWE without it.

  12. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJune 27, 2014 at 3:01 AM

    Again, this is where I have to find it within me to say TNA and Hogan got this briefly right back during their last hot stretch in 2012, where all Hogan did was chill in the back and make matches or have wrestlers convince him why they should be in the title mix, and if two guys were shittalking for too long, he'd just got out there and LATER TONIGHT, YOU TWO ARE GONNA FACE OFF HERE IN THE IMPACT ZONE, DUDE, BECAUSE THE TIME FOR TALKING IS OVER, JACK

    Perfect use of the authority figure: out of the way until he/she needs to exert authority and in the logical sense of booking shit. For about four months, they got it right, anyway.

  13. TJ: I'm listening to the Dave Scherer "shoot". About 20 minutes in, and I've already declared this is the worst subscriber podcast I've ever heard. Mike Johnson is long-winded, and a total Dave Meltzer rip-off. And Dave Scherer is a terrible foil. He tries to be funny with terrible one-liners and I'm pretty sure he was eating something through it (insert dog joke here). This is helping me with my insomnia.

  14. kbwrestlingreviewsJune 27, 2014 at 3:05 AM

    Does anyone know when the next call is?

  15. I've never purchased a PPV in my life.
    I subscribe to the WWE Network.
    I don't know how many of "me"-types there are for the WWE to collect.

  16. Exactly, if you're going to have a figure that is on TV a lot then that would be a great way to do it. As far as I'm concerned, the feuds should largely be due to issues between the wrestlers. X said/did this and now Y is pissed off and wants to settle things in a match.

    I mean, the whole crux of this 'best for business' bullshit seems to be that the management know what fans want more than they do. I mean, yeah ok you could go with that storyline for a while, but where does it end? Where is the conclusion? All they'll eventually do is find another babyface to pick on and it'll be exactly the same shit rehashed, which as you say has been going on for a decade or more now. The worst part is that it means they will constantly be around the title picture because that is what management cares about. It's self-perpetuating and stale as hell.


Post a Comment