WWE: How WWE Network Will Revolutionize Entire Product (if Successful)

The WWE Network is a major risk for the WWE. It could revolutionize the entire structure of the company, from how their characters are portrayed to how the shows are produced and how the storylines are written. Most importantly, it would overhaul their revenue model, as a national cable channel would surely be among the biggest moneymakers in the vast WWE portfolio.

Many are blowing this off as another money grab from Vince McMahon, who has made a habit of trying to jump into media formats for which he is not well equipped, including the XFL and WWE Films. I have my doubts as to whether or not WWE Network will be successful, but taking an optimistic slant, I want to take a look at one possibility that could greatly improve the quality of programming.

This column was spurred by another column. WWE News: The Latest on Minor Pay-Per-Views Moving to WWE Network. That column credited Wrestlezone.com with the following piece of news:

"

As of right now, the monthly pay-per-views will be available on the WWE Network, according to The Wrestling Observer. The only pay-per-views that will remain exclusive to traditional pay-per-view ordering are Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, SummerSlam and Survivor Series.

This will begin once the network launches which is expected on April 1st, the day of WrestleMania 28. This means that the Extreme Rules PPV would be the first to be available for those who have the WWE Network.

"

We have to look at this more closely to really understand how such changes would revolutionize the booking model of the company. To say that the minor PPVs are moving to cable television is a misnomer. In doing so, they are in fact no longer PPVs.

The viewer is no longer paying for the show and therefore is not forced into making the decision to purchase in advance. This allows for an increased number of stumble-upon viewers, but also means that a viewer is not as committed to the program as they would be if purchasing it, and can flip the channel to someone else if bored and lose interest. This change means that Extreme Rules is really nothing more than a 3-hour TV special.

By returning to the Big-4 format, these “minor PPVs” should be viewed the same as we would have viewed occasional Clash of the Champions specials produced by NWA/WCW back in the 80s and early 90s. These aren’t even on the same level as the monthly WWE In Your House programs.

Many would argue that WWE hasn’t booked the minor PPVs as TV specials for the last few years, and with the diminished creative effort and the increased prices have caused the buyrates to plummet. While I agree with those opinions (I only purchase Wrestlemania every year), it makes sense for WWE to pull back on the PPV production quality, marketing and all of the costs associated while moving the programming to boost their network and sell advertising during the show. This may lengthen the specials by an hour as they pack in advertising revenue.

If this gigantic shift in philosophy takes place, one of my hopes is that WWE takes a look at the PPVs that would be moving to WWE Network and evaluate as to whether or not the gimmicks attached are really worth that placement and whether or not they are better served boosting buy rates for actual PPVs presented quarterly.

Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell, TLC and Elimination Chamber are four shows built around gimmick matches. All three match types were enormously successful at driving buys when used as part of a storyline leading to a PPV. Unfortunately, none of them have been nearly as successful at driving buys when turned into an annual milestone. They lost their luster, their importance, and don’t pull in viewers the same.

I’ll take these individually.

Money in the Bank: The latest evolution of the ladder match had become a Wrestlemania staple, providing an opportunity for a number of young midcarders and gritty veterans to wow the crowd and catapult someone’s career while granting a surefire “Wrestlemania Moment.” Since it was moved to its own PPV, and also adding a second match, one per brand, it watered down the gimmick. Naysayers had already been complaining about the limited number of spots we could see in the match, and by adding a second, it only hurt the match.

If moved back to Wrestlemania, a card that is already stacked each year with special appearances (both non-regular wrestlers and celebrity tie-ins alike), there is the chance to get more guys on the show for paychecks and a share of the spotlight.

Hell in a Cell: When Shawn Michaels and the Undertaker had one of their first epic collisions in a Hell in a Cell match, jaws across wrestling dropped at the vicious, brutal incarnation of the ladder match. The cell has given us some of the greatest memories of the last decade in wrestling, but since become a PPV, having as many as three such matches in a single night, and not attaching the gimmick to a storyline worth its grandeur, fans stopped caring.

Along with the repetitiveness of the match is the lack of brutality. In WWE, wrestlers no longer bleed. They don’t take the bumps we saw from 1996-2003. If Mick Foley came along today, we’d never see him go off the top of a 20-foot cage through a table.

This match needs to be reserved for extended feuds that warrant such a conclusion. Hell in a Cell is meant to decisively end rivalries, not transition to the next month. If John Cena and CM Punk were to go to war from July and through August over the WWE title and Triple H had declared this issue end, he could have put SummerSlam in a Hell in a Cell match. Hell in a Cell can also be used on the 3-hour specials if the timing falls in place, but it should not be pegged for a given month.

TLC: The December PPV is one of the worst transitions from gimmick match to gimmick PPV. To understand, you have to look back to the creation of the TLC match. It came to be after the Dudleyz built a reputation for throwing people through tables, the Hardyz fancied jumping off ladders and Edge & Christian were masters of the Con-Chair-to. Thus, we were given the Tables, Ladders and Chairs match. Nobody knew at the time TLC would become part of the pro wrestling fans vernacular.

Now, we have four gimmick matches in December, a TLC match, a tables match, a ladder match and a chairs match. The first three make sense, but the chairs match is a forced gimmick nobody grasps. In doing so, we also lose the value of the tables and ladder matches because they are used when there is no inherit storyline value to the gimmick. They should also be tailored to a character’s style. This is why Kevin Nash and Triple H should never have competed in a ladder match. The chance of seeing a TLC match on the card of a SummerSlam, Survivor Series or even a Royal Rumble would spike the buyrates of the given PPV if booked adequately.

Elimination Chamber: The greatest item of Eric Bischoff’s sad legacy in the WWE is that he is credited (in storyline) for creating the Elimination Chamber. At the time, there were five superstars that all had claim to the top contender’s spot of the WWE title. Now, we have two such matches, and I’m sorry, but there is no way in the current structure we have ten legitimate title contenders. Thus, we get filler.

Also, the placement of the Elimination Chamber PPV is absurd. The Royal Rumble is built to give someone a shot at one of the top titles at Wrestlemania. The other title was to be built through storyline. Now, we are forced to sit through this overly contrived explanation that the other title shot must be earned through the EC, while the other EC match is for the title. So in one match, we have the foregone conclusion that the champion is going to survive or else the prior four weeks were a waste. On the other side, we usually know who is going to win because if a title match hasn’t started a build to Mania prior to that PPV, it’s going to be less-than-stellar.

With the slow death of the classic Survivor Series match, I’d actually like to see the Elimination Chamber match attached to a single PPV, that being the November show. The concept of the Elimination Chamber screams “survival” which fits the PPV ideally. If each year, the man holding the WWE Championship was forced to survive the Elimination Chamber against five other top contenders, in addition to the classic Survivor Series match, we’d really see a bump in buys.

In summary, we need to consider the significant ramifications of a new revenue model for the WWE. Unlike WWE Films or the XFL, this networks fits into the core competency of the company and can have a massive impact on the creative structure. This isn’t an ancillary revenue stream, it’s an industry revolution.

That is if it works, of course.