Monday Night Rematches After PPVs

[Coop434]

Why does the WWE do this? What is the incentive to buy a PPV when you can watch the main event again the following night? Granted, the matches are a lot longer the previous night, and usually it only revolves around one of the main events, but I like to think that what I just paid for is not something the rest of the world gets for free the following night.

WWE has been better about this in recent months and they don't do it after the biggest PPVs such as WM and SS.

Still I don't understand how that is a good business strategy other than, "we have run out of ideas."

 

[monkeystyle]

Why does the WWE do this? What is the incentive to buy a PPV when you can watch the main event again the following night?

Granted, the matches are a lot longer the previous night, and usually it only revolves around one of the main events, but I like to think that what I just paid for is not something the rest of the world gets for free the following night.

You just answered your own question. You paid for the suerior quality match (in theory) the rest of the world isn't getting the same quality match for free the next night. They're getting an abbreviated version at best. Not to mention storyline wise it just makes sense that there would be a confrontation between the two the following night, if not a re-match of some sort.

Still I don't understand how that is a good business strategy other than, "we have run out of ideas."

It has little to do with running out of ideas and everything to do with continuing a story and drawing in the viewers again. Makes sense to me.

 

[The Rated R CMStar]

It's not the same. Usually, the match on Raw is a washed up version of what happened at the PPV, and it doesn't have anymore the same emotion, nor build up nor excitement.

 

[MikeRaw]

That rarely even happens though. I mean, usually the guy who lsot comes out and makes a challenge, but the rematch almost always doesn't happen untilt he next PPV. Either that, or it's a non-title match.
So I don't even really see it happen much, and when it does, like MS said, the match is nowhere near as good or climatic.

 

[Wordlife]

^thats basically what I was going to say

I like those kind of matches, but if they only they could be more PPV-Caliber, then they would make a difference

 

[eggthief]

Well the Hbk vs Cena rematch was better than its precessor, but I guess that Cena noticed that he sold like crap that night so that would explain the quality improvement.

 

[monkeystyle]

I like those kind of matches, but if they only they could be more PPV-Caliber, then they would make a difference

And they would make the actual PPV matches less relevant, which is dumb. WWE is a business. Their primary goal is to make money. Never forget that.

 

[seX-Power]

It's not the same. Usually, the match on Raw is a washed up version of what happened at the PPV, and it doesn't have anymore the same emotion, nor build up nor excitement.

This. Storyline wise it makes perfect sense to get another match because of the rematch clause, though it shouldn't be the next night imo, gives off too much of a Deja Vu for the people that have watched the PPV.

 

[Beer]

To be fair to the WWE. They don't do this very often, and when they do, you can see why. If I was the WWE, and I saw a match get a great reaction, then I would do it again, and again, to reap as much money as possible from it. It makes sense.

 

[Moonlight Drive]

The last time they did this was Orton vs HHH, and that was really just to further the Regal storyline.

 

[Airfixx]

Assuming the majority of you won't have paid for the PPV anyway, most of your opinions are null.

Whilst I'm not looking to claim some kind of moral higher ground, I DO pay for each PPV and I'd rather see a rematch on TV the night after UNLESS the fued really had some legs; if the stroyline actually had further to go and actually warranted more PPV time.... (A title change, a big time storyline twist or similar.)

Seeing someone retain in a rematch of a match I'd previously paid to see isn't that worthy of my PPV money IMO - It just says padding to me, even if it is at the top of the card... See Y2J v Cena at Armageddon 08(*) for example.


(*Can't clearly remember the finishes - FU for the 123 on both occasions if I'm not mistaken - but in the rematch I'd have liked to have seen Y2J getting disqualified out of desperation as he saw history repeating himself and he knew it's his last shot at the champ... Sometimes clean finishes aren't always a good thing.).



Also, one of my fave matches from last year was a Monday night rehash.... Y2J v HBK when Jericho was on the brink of his heel turn, having the internal debate about whether to chair-shot HBK or not.

 

[noumenon]

Yeah, it's rarely done anymore... with title matches anyway. Usually only with higher profile feuds they'll repeat the match and same finish to simply cement who one the feud. And if course capitalize off a feud on last time.

The most common scenario is...
FACE loses title to HEEL at PPV. FACE challenges heel their rematch on RAW.
HEEL says he went through hell the previous night, no way.
FACE vs. MONSTER is announced for later that night.
FACE beats monster to demonstrate he's still dominant.