I was looking at a synopsis of the Buyrates for HIAC, Survivor Series and TLC over the last 5 years. Interesting to me that HIAC 2013 with Bryan/Orton blew 2012 with the first Punk/Ryback out of the water. About 30,000 more buys and the largest HIAC buyrate since 2009. At the time, I was far more interested in that match, given Rybacks winning streak and heat, than I had been in quite a while for a middling PPV main event. Then, Survivor Series did horribly in comparison with Orton/Show in the main and Bryan w Punk against the Wyatts.
I know Cena returned against Del Rio at HIAC as well. But it seems that the D-Bry chase may have been drawing some. Your thoughts?
Sent from my iPhone
Considering that Battleground is the lowest buyrate of the modern era, I'd say that it was Cena that popped the number for HIAC. Although TLC then flopped, showing that it was probably just a fluke for his return.
Frankly the numbers are all over the map:
ReplyDeleteSummerSlam 2012 (Lesnar vs. HHH) = 358k
SummerSlam 2013 (Bryan vs. Cena) = 296k
Night of Champions 2012 (Punk vs. Cena) = 189k
Night of Champions 2013 (Orton vs. Bryan) = 175k
Battleground 2013 (Orton vs. Bryan) = 114k
Hell in a Cell 2012 (Punk vs. Ryback) = 199k
Hell in a Cell 2013 (Orton vs. Bryan) = 228k
Survivor Series 2012 (Punk vs. Ryback vs. Cena) = 208k
Survivor Series 2013 (Orton vs. Big Show) = 177k
TLC 2012 (Cena vs. Ziggler) = 175k
TLC 2013 (Orton vs. Cena) = 181k
They aren't all over the map, what you posted would show that Cena is the draw.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, people need to stop cherry picking PPV numbers and trying to claim someone is a draw. There are multiple variables that go into a PPV buyrate and it is more than just the wrestler(s) that wrestle in the main event. Its like trying to argue that because the back-up second baseman goes 10-20 in a week that he should start because he'll hit .500 for the season. So please everyone, please stop with the "SO AND SO ISN"T A DRAW BECAUSE OF XYZ!"
I think it should be occupied that that Donny have any one single guy who is going to pop the buyrates, including Cena and Bryan (sorry gang).
ReplyDeleteI think at this point, looking at Pay-Per-View numbers or TV numbers as a litmus test to see whether certain guys are "drawing" is kind of silly. UFC draws on pay-per-view because they don't have a weekly show where you can watch the top stars duke it out. So if you want to see UFC's "Hulk Hogan" (Anderson Silva, Georges St. Pierre, Rhonda Rousey, Cain Velasquez, et al) you need to pony up the money or catch the "UFC on..." series, which airs sporadically. In comparison, you can turn on Raw or Smackdown and see John Cena, Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, Batista, and all of their "top guys" on a weekly basis, usually in action.
ReplyDeleteThe Monday Night Wars might have drew huge numbers for the Big Two, but once you were putting matches like Goldberg vs. Hulk Hogan or The Rock vs. Mankind out there on an almost weekly basis for free, Pandora's box was open, and people were only going to throw $50 at a monthly pay-per-view for so long when it was becoming clear that the story that you've become invested in isn't going to end on Sunday night, but on Monday night.
If you look at those numbers, the shows that drew the best were freak show attractions (Lesnar vs. HHH), or really well built stories that people were willing to buy into watching (Bryan vs. Cena, Orton vs. Bryan). There isn't a solid correlation that "This Guy" is a draw outside of Lesnar, who people don't get burnt out on because he's not showing up every week/month.
And don't get me started on ratings. Those are based more on "I have nothing better to do, so I guess I'll watch Raw" than who/what they're showcasing that week, beyond the blips that "BROCK LESNAR RETURNS" or "BATISTA RETURNS" bring in.
I know this might seem silly, but has there been a precedent when WWE introduces a brand new PPV name that buyrates fall because some fans might not be aware it's a WWE PPV.
ReplyDeleteLast ppv I paid for was WM 28, the last show they had that I actually was interested in. Their booking of Daniel Bryan is what has soured me on their product. I have the SummerSlam 2013 DVD, because that show ended up awesome, and yes I stop it during the DB celebration, before the Orton cash in. I would much rather read the results and then either buy the DVD or download the show.
ReplyDeleteYou can (fairly) blame the booking, but the PPV numbers do not overall support "DB = Buyrates." I know the overall point of the email was that DB drew "some", but two of the other three PPVs he headline dropped relative to 2012, with Summerslam buys not unreasonably described by Vince as a swing and a miss.
ReplyDelete1- Hell in a Cell 2012 did not include John Cena, who was injured and replaced with Ryback (handpicked by Vince, similar to Cena picking DB for Summerslam). It might mean Cena's buying power isn't as strong as is generally perceived, but it is reasonable to conclude his absence hurt 2012 HIAC, much as Scott concluded that Cena's presence helped HIAC 2013.
2- If a 15% increase at HIAC (based on White's numbers of 228 vs. 199) blew the past year out of the water, then the more than 20% drop in Summerslam for DB-Cena was blown out of the water and then shot with an ICBM while in the air, especially considering a drop of 62k for Summerslam cost the WWE twice as much as the 29k increase for HIAC.
3- The Battleground comparison isn't necessary, as its numbers were comparable to the 122k in Vengeance 2011, the most recent Q4 PPV with a three week build.
The counterargument is that there is no way to know how far buyrates might have fallen had someone else been the focus of those shows.
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the natural conclusion be that the "Cell" match and Shawn as the special ref were the draws?
ReplyDeleteBattleground tanked because everyone knew it was going to suck. Hell, I could have gone to see it live for free and passed.
ReplyDeleteMichaels might have helped, but I don't think that the Cell is a draw anymore, especially when they now do them not as a blowoff match, but just because it's that time of year. And Cell matches are pointless in the PG-era, it's just a normal match in a big cage, no blood, no crazy bumps... Not that I'm advocating for blading and dumb stunts, but a HITC is useless without at least one of the 2.
ReplyDeleteShawn wasn't much of a draw as an actual wrestler. I wonder if being a part-time referee has changed that significantly.
ReplyDeleteSomehow I doubt that anyone has ever bought a show because of a guest referee.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a commentary on whether Bryan is a draw, Cena isn't a draw, etc, but are we really using Battleground? A very poorly booked PPV set up as "Big Show's choice" with everyone in the world knowing the real payoff (good or bad) would be at Hell in a Cell?
ReplyDeleteI was interested in Night of Champions to an extent, the first match of the Orton/Bryan feud. And I was interested in Hell in a Cell to see who would win the final match, but I didn't care at all about Battleground because I fully expected either a screwjob finish or an Orton win leading to the payoff at Hell in a Cell. This is one of the huge problems with throwing out a bunch of PPVs in a row with only 3 weeks build.
That's not me trying to say Bryan is a draw and Battleground doesn't count, just making the point that there are a ton of reasons why a buyrate might be good or bad, and with only a few exceptions, I think we're long past the point where a single guy is going to sell a PPV by themselves (including Bryan and Cena). A single match can sell a PPV if it's big enough (like Cena/Brock or Cena/Rock), but those are special circumstances.
Also, why is Bryan automatically either credited or ripped for the buyrates? Wasn't Orton also main eventing all of those PPVs?
Not me because I wasn't buying PPVs at all at the time, but I bet Mick Foley sold a few PPVs when he was guest ref for the Nash/HHH Hell in a Cell. Not BECAUSE he was the ref, but because the only time I had any interest in that show was when HHH and Foley were interacting on Raw beforehand.
ReplyDeleteIn general I don't think a guest ref is a big PPV seller, but I think it sometimes makes a difference. I wouldn't be shocked if Shawn contributed a few buys from people who wanted to see if he'd help Bryan win or turn on him.
Shawn not being a draw is such a fallacy - yeah, maybe not in 1995, but during the last seven-and-a-half years of his career?
ReplyDeleteHogan/Shawn drew over 100K more buys than Hogan/Orton a year later, for instance.
Totally forgot about that match. TASTE THE CLIQUE NEPOTISM, SMELL THE BUYRATE!
ReplyDeleteExactly - it's not that a certain person is the referee, but what a certain person being the referee means for the story.
ReplyDeleteAnd here, the story sucked. And I'm convinced that HBK even being involved was just laziness on the part of creative. Instead of coming up with a good idea, it's just "Meh, we'll stick Shawn in there.
ReplyDeleteIt's not what it used to be, but there's still some "residual" interest in it - the "HIAC" PPV buyrate has pretty much always gotten more buys than the other C-level shows around it ("Night of Champions", "Bragging Rights", "TLC", etc.).
ReplyDeleteYes, the story DID suck, but Shawn's involvement made it suck less. There was a small glimmer of hope at the time that Shawn would "counter-balance" Trips, allowing Bryan to get the win.
ReplyDeleteThat's what should have happened.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the fact that everyone knew you were going to get a screwy finish in the main event couldn't have helped it.
ReplyDeleteExactly - there's more than one variable when it comes to whether a show will do well or not.
ReplyDeleteHell, look at "WM19" - one of the absolute greatest WM/PPV cards in history, absolutely STACKED on paper, but a pretty abysmal buy-rate. I've always credited the writing at the time (that was during Trips' "Reign of Terror") for the low interest, but who knows?
I also think that, with almost every PPV being "themed" now, the lack of any type of gimmick match hurt it.
ReplyDelete"Over the Limit", "Capital Punishment", and "Battleground" all did poorly. Sure, the booking was a mess, and some of them had weak main-events (Cena/Truth?), but adding a stipulation to "Payback" certainly helped.
I really think that we're kind of at the point of no return now, where every PPV (other than "WrestleMania" and "Summerslam") is expected to have extra bells and whistles attacked to the main-event. Especially since the company has basically painted itself into a corner by not making any of the story-lines compelling.
Hell, I actually think all of the gimmick-matches being used in main-events is one of the things that's really hurting the mid-card. Instead of, say, Cena and Orton getting to have a "TLC" match, you let The Usos, Los Matadores, and some of the other cruisers (JTG, Hunico, Kidd, Bourne, Kofi, Gabriel, etc.) tear it up in a "TLC" match? Remember what "No Mercy, 1999" did for The Hardys and E&C? Exactly.
Anyone know where I can find attendance figures for it? Because I didn't see a word of promotion for it locally, and seeing as how the radio stations were giving away tickets like crazy the weekend of the show (like, "If you want WWE tickets, just come down to the studio") makes me think that a lot of the people that were there got in for free.
ReplyDeleteIt would also take some of the physical burden off of their top stars. I mean, consider the fact that somebody like Orton, this year alone, has participated in a Money in the Bank ladder match, a TLC match, a Hell in a Cell match, and will participate in an Elimination Chamber match. Equitable examples can be given to Bryan, Punk, and Cena. Throwing some of these brutal stipulation matches to the undercard (or at least the upper midcard) would really minimize the possibility of injuries to your top stars.
ReplyDeleteYou also have to factor in other competition. Didn't WWE have some ridiculously bad luck by always having their PPVs fall on the same nights as huge Sunday Night Football games, or the Emmys, or the Breaking Bad/Walking Dead finales, or other big events on Sunday evening?
ReplyDeleteSort of a threadjack from the daily update, but I can't help but admire the stubbornness of people who think Orton is gonna have the title yanked off of him. I mean, they're building up the match before it's even set. They ain't changing it.
ReplyDeleteYou remind me of Phoebe's mom, who stopped Old Yeller before the end. Did you know that dog had "Babies" at the end?
ReplyDeleteIf you're wondering where the downvote came from, it was probably because of "the shows that drew the best were freak show attractions (Lesnar vs. HHH)" because even under odd circumstances, even if it's the truth, TRIPLE H IS BAD AND HAS NEVER BEEN A DRAW!! /BoD
ReplyDeleteYou're looking at that PPV through rose-coloured glasses. I know you've acknowledged that there certainly are variables and circumstances that dictate the buyrate - and I agree with that - but at that point in time the card wasn't terribly exciting. Now in hindsight the card looks great because we can look at *what it is* as opposed to how the audience viewed it live.
ReplyDeleteTHIS BUSINESS~! was in its greatest nadir of the last twelve years at that point. All of the top matches are historically significant in hindsight, but were worth very little in the zeitgeist.
Brock vs. Kurt: A GOAT and gold medallist vs. genetic freak who was to become adept in MMA and became UFC champion. At the time neither was established as a legitimate draw, and this ended up main eventing (which was probably the best decision, but still...)
Hogan vs. Vince: An entertaining brawl that I suppose is the blow off to something that actually pretty much was "20 years in the making", but the Hulkamania nostalgia train had run its course by 2003.
Austin vs. Rock: Now it's seen as Austin's last match ever against his greatest rival, but this came across as something that was thrown together and had been done to death by that point.
HHH vs. Booker: In all actuality is was Raw's top babyface being fed to the champ, and in reality the company never had faith in Booker as a top guy. It's more interesting in hindsight because it gives ammunition to those who want reason to bitch about Triple H.
Really, the only match on the card that had a good, long build and totally paid off upon the match's ending was Shawn vs. Jericho, but that would not have affected the buyrate.
Mike Tyson?
ReplyDeleteLol make all the excuses you want. People may like dbry but he doesn't make them dpart with their money.
ReplyDelete"What kind of sick doggy snuff film IS this?"
ReplyDeleteAm I supposed to be impressed that you obviously can't read and ignored me saying multiple times I'm not commenting on whether Bryan can draw or not?
ReplyDeleteNot knowing how to read doesn't make you cool.
Battleground's buyrates had far less to do with lack of Cena than it did having 3 PPV's in 6 weeks. Why spend money on that show when you know HIAC is coming a couple weeks later?
ReplyDeleteTyson?
ReplyDeleteYou don't think anyone bought a ppv to see Brad Maddox ref a match?
ReplyDeleteDude stop talking about the drawing power of dbry. There is many more things you could be talking about on here, but you insist on is cussing Bryan. Then, when my opinion differs from yours you get upset and attempt to act condescending, but just come off like the slow kid at the lunch table.
ReplyDeletePlease, start discussing other things, you've run Daniel Bryan into the ground and made people loathe hearing his name. Thanks kyle
What in the world are you talking about? I think this is the first thread I've actually commented in that even mentioned whether or not Bryan is a draw, and my post started with "I'm not talking about whether he's a draw or not".
ReplyDeleteNot sure if you're being a troll or don't understand how to read. I really have no idea who you are.
He wasn't a guest ref.
ReplyDeleteAgain, not a ref.
ReplyDeleteNot "I think". I KNOW he's never drawn a single buy, unless it was his parents or wife.
ReplyDelete