WWE News: DirecTV Survey States WWE Network Could Air Majority of Pay-Per-Views
If and when the WWE Network finally hits the air, its programming might include a majority of WWE’s pay-per-views, according to an Internet report.
PWInsider.com states that DirectTV recently sent a survey to its customers gauging interest in the long-promised WWE Network. The survey notes that the network could carry 11 of the 12 pay-per-view events, with WrestleMania being the only PPV left off the network.
WWEN would be a premium channel, meaning customers would have to pay an extra monthly fee to receive it.
According to the report, the survey also inquired about how often its subscribers order pay-per-view events and whether those subscribers who did not purchase WWEN would still purchase the PPVs that aired on the network. It also wanted to know if viewers who purchased WWEN would also purchase the WrestleMania PPV.
On the topic of purchase price, PWInsider.com reported that DirecTV asked for input on five potential per-month costs should WWEN be offered as a stand-alone channel. Those prices range from $12.99 to $29.99.
According to the report, the survey also asks viewers about programming they would like to see on the network. They were also asked if they thought offering WWEN would increase the overall value of DirecTV.
WWE announced last November that the network would be offered as a premium channel, but it has yet to set a launch date. Originally, WWEN was going to launch around WrestleMania 28, but those plans were scrapped.
Keith Harris of CagesideSeats.com stated that the interest of a major carrier like DirecTV could mean “serious movement” toward a firm launch date for the network. It said the survey results “should mean that Vince McMahon will finally have a big announcement about the WWE Network” when the company holds its fourth-quarter results conference call with stockholders at the end of this month.
Follow Bill Atkinson on Twitter at @BAtkinson1963.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?