Week 1: Troy & ABed vs Defiant

[Kris P. Kareem]

Sports team

OK new battle

theme: sports team
Size: any
Opponents: 1
Judges: 3
Rules: no animations
Deadline: within 3 days of accepting the challenge

 

[Baller]

Troy & A Bed is the home debater and may choose which side he wants first. He has 24 hours to choose, or it becomes a free for all.

Debaters you have till Sunday at Midnight to debate the following topic, good luck:

Should WWE PPVs be Brand Exclusive?

 

[SAL]

Baller insists on capitalizing my name incorrectly.

Anyway: NOOOOOOO. No, no, no. WWE PPVs should not be brand exclusive. A quick summary of my arguments, which I will flesh out at a later time (tomorrow, likely):

1. From a creative standpoint, it would tremendously hurt the quality of the product by spreading the talent even thinner and forcing people into roles both they and the audience won't be ready for. I'll bring up examples from WWF's creative peak in the late 1990s, when not only were PPVs combined but top stars regularly appeared on both Raw and Smackdown. I know we're all sick of the same old (you know what), but new isn't always better. I'll also bring in examples and hypotheticals from 2003 and 2011 WWE to illustrate this point.

2. From a financial standpoint, it would be downright suicidal to keep top stars off PPVs. It's well known that WWE went public to great fanfare in 1999. Since then, they've made a number of shrewd moves to grow their brand and broaden their fanbase as much as possible. They put their most marketable stars in WWE-produced movies. They constantly find ways to get all types of celebrities on the show to cross-promote with other fanbases. Every move is calculated to wring every dollar out of the product they can. And, with all that in mind, you want John Cena to sit out every other month?

3. Related to the creative problem: WWE just isn't interested in building the type of show you'd need to build to make a complete brand separation work. My esteemed opponent will doubtlessly bring up the notion of increased opportunities for talented lower-card wrestlers. He should mention the possibility of creating a star on one brand and then later setting him loose on the other brand with a number of unique interesting matchups. And that's all true! WWE COULD do that. But we know better, don't we? WWE has shown no interest in good long-term booking over the last decade. They're content giving us flashes of angles like Nexus, milking as much from them as possible, and letting them fizzle out into nothing. Furthermore, the brand extension wouldn't mesh with WWE's current idea of creating stars. A guy you can only see on Smackdown shows? That's a subset of a subset. WWE smartly uses the combined PPVs for the purpose of bringing the subsets together and having these guys interact when necessary.

4. If those first three arguments fail, which they won't, I can make a pretty easy historical argument. WWE did just this starting in June 2003. Within four years, they abandoned it. Why? The answer, I will convince you in this debate, is simple common sense. The current structure gives wrestlers an opportunity to get over on TV and earn a spot on the PPV. It's the right combination of creating opportunities and giving the all-important PPVs the special feel they lacked during the full brand extension. Seriously. One of my posts in this debate may be nothing more than posting the card from Judgment Day 2004. You'll ask why anybody flushed down $30 to watch some of these shows.

In conclusion, while excluding wrestlers to either Raw or Smackdown is defensible, keeping them off every other PPV is not. Defiant, good luck.

 

[Defiant]

"I know we're all sick of the same old (you know what), but new isn't always better."

I've always approved of this line of thought. However, every successful company or industry knows that in order to stay relevant, exciting and profitable, said company should always encourage change and risk-taking. The opportunity to experiment should be welcomed. Taking a writer or creative person out of their comfort zone is what helps them adapt and to expand their creative talent.

The proposed "Brand-Exclusive PPV System" for WWE would prove a hurdle for the writing teams, as well as an adjustment for the audience. These obstacles have been noted by my opponent. However, such a drastic change is not without it's benefits.

Before I get into my argument, I'd like to highlight a couple of particular items brought up by my opponent:

1. He predicted that I would bring up the possibility of creating new stars and giving air time to the lower-card workers. Well, this is true, I will bring it up. On numerous occassions.

2. Most, if not all, of the downsides my opponent has brought up in relation to the brand-exclusive PPV system are short term problems. It would be a gross exaggeration, and perhaps even an insult, to suggest that audiences would not be able to adapt to something as simple as a Raw-PPV/SD-PPV system.

Now, onto my argument.

Surely in the mind of one Vince K. McMahon, the primary question he would be asking is "How will this affect my bottom line?". Buyrates and profitability. Surely he would be shitting his pants at the thought of only sparringly using John Cena or Randy Orton on Pay Per View? In all honesty, he would have good reason to panic. But Vince McMahon is no fool. We've known the man to show his genius when it comes to big company moves, especially with the long-term in mind. The switch to the PG rating, for example: An unpopular decision and a hell of an adjustment for the first year. But a brilliant move in long term financial gain and bringing in a whole generation of new fans.

Yeah that's another topic, but an great example of long-term vision and, more importantly, an unpopular one that, while loathed by older wrestling fans who were ignorant to the light at the end of the tunnel, is not without a silver lining.

So, what are these long term gains I persistently allude to? Let me leave the financial portion of my argument here... I will get back to it.

The change to a Brand-Exclusive PPV system will have drastic implications on how the entire roster is used and how the television shows are booked. The Creative team of each brand will be forced to BUILD their stars (yes I'm bringing this up now) rather than relying on the main event names, especially if they happen to be on the other brand. Why should WWE be comfortable with just John Cena and Randy Orton when there's an entire roster behind them mostly going to waste (arguably with more universal talent). Cena will always be Cena and Orton will always be Orton, by why is that enough? Yes, WWE leans on Cena and depends on him to draw, that's the reality of how things work right now. But is that how it SHOULD work? Is that the only way it COULD work? The answer to that riddle is "No."

And let's not pretend that its unrealistic to expect WWE to be able to push talent to a level where they can stand with credibility in main events and title fueds, or to draw money. WE KNOW FOR A FACT that if WWE wants to push someone, they CAN. Just look at what they did with The Miz. Or, even better, Wade Barrett, who came from out of freakin' nowhere and became WWE's top heel for roughly half a year (he's my pick for MITB, btw). Now, Miz and Barrett (hell, even R-Truth's recent push) in particular are recent examples of WWE's creative spark, so the supposed "challenge" of WWE creating new stars to carry a brand and draw money at a PPV is not much of a challenge at all if they're serious.

Now, back to the juicy financial stuff. WWE Pay Per View events right now are, for the most part, struggling to nail the profit that the company is aiming for. They jump for joy once its time to build for, say, Money In The Bank, meanwhile the rest of the calender is suffering and little is done to address this other than some lazy quick-fix such as changing a PPV's name, adding a gimmick to it, or (worst of all) introducing a new one. You could argue that a Brand-Exclusive PPV would be a risk given this, but I would think that such a shake-up, while rocky at first, may be just what the doctor ordered in terms of refreshing this horribly stale format we are currently subjected to.

Something is clearly not working when WWE has to rely on the "Big 4" and MITB to draw money these days (didn't this year's "Over The Limit" produce the lowest buys in, what, five years?)

Now, let's assume this proposed PPV split plays by the same rules it did earlier in the decade (2002-03 I believe). Let's assume the "Big Four" are still combined-roster events (I'd rather MITB go back to WM, but for the sake of argument let's say its a brand-exclusive event but the match itself is 4 guys from each brand - one ladder match of course). If anything, this should give the fan more incentive to purchase a PPV; the rare opportunity to witness the big names and fueds of each roster on one show.

One PPV in particular that will probably benefit the most is Summerslam. Apart from the aforementioned MITB, this would be the first time since Wrestlemania that the fans get to see talent from both brands on the same card, getting the best top names and top fueds from both worlds on one show. Why am I so confident that this would work, and actually get fans excited? Because we haven't already seen this PPV premise for the God-knows-how-many-its-been time that year. Honestly I can't really differentiate Summerslam from any other regular PPV for this reason, it feels like a PPV I've already seen this year multiple times. However, if it was one of the few gigs of the year to feature both halfs of the WWE roster, thats gonna be much more of a marketable hook than "Hey guys, this PPV is SUMMER-THEMED!!"

And just to add on to that last point before I finish up, another application of this theory to boost PPV interest would be "Bragging Rights". Like Summerslam, this PPV is redundant because it's a PPV we've already seen this year tenfold, we've seen countless PPV's in the year already that feature both Raw and Smackdown... except (and get this everyone!!) one of the matches is an elimination tag team match that pits both brands against each other... Despite the fact that, as it is, interpromotional matches on PPV's (even on TV) aren't uncommon anyway. But, for lack of better words, absence makes the heart grow fonder. Apply my above theory for boosting interest in Summerslam to Bragging Rights, and the premise of an annual "Raw vs Smackdown" event (MITB is more of a free-for-all) will undoubtedly be better recieved and more appealing.

In conclusion:

I am well in favor of brand-exclusive PPVs because, as I've suggested, it will yield long term benefits such as as strengthened brand identity and PPV significance, as well as WWE's creative team being forced to create new, profitable stars rather than relying on the Cenas and Ortons. But let me pose a scenario: Assume WWE tries the brand-exclusive PPV format for, say, 18 months, the concept does not succeed as well as intended, the calender is returned to our current format, and ultimately I am wrong. There is absolutely no way in hell that there weren't some lessons learnt, some discoveries and revelations along the way and in hindsight. Even if it fails, financially or creatively, WWE will be given a whole new perspective on what the fans want, what works and what doesn't, how competent the creative staff is or isn't, which superstars can or cannot carry a brand or fued, or draw, etc etc.

Of course, this is assuming it fails, WWE will still have a lesson to take home with them at the end of the day. New knowledge and a new perspective of their talent, fans and staff that they could not have attained otherwise. I'd say that would be worth the money, wouldn't you?

Good luck, T&A. I look forward to your response.

-----------

Now, my Mortal Kombat arrived while typing this monster and I'm dying to take it for a spin, so if you'll excuse me.

 

[SAL]

Fantastic argument, Defiant. I think that might be the best you can do with the argument you've got. It's a shame you don't have the right side of this one. I plan to hit the first two of my four arguments presented above, and then I'll respond to a few of Defiant's points.

First of all, if the brand extension applied to PPVs, the show would be worse. Much worse, in fact. Defiant's proposal would cut the available talent for every PPV by half. Every other month, your favorite WWE superstar wouldn't make an appearance on a show the fan has to pay $50 to watch. I'm sure you've heard the old circus metaphor applied to wrestling; if you don't come for the clowns, maybe you come for the liontamer, or the tightrope walker, or the trapeze artists, etc. Doesn't cutting off half the roster from a PPV feel like telling the audience, "No clowns tonight, sorry"? Given the exorbitant prices WWE charges for each show, it smacks of bad faith to keep popular superstars off 4 of the 12 biggest shows of the year. Defiant says:

The Creative team of each brand will be forced to BUILD their stars (yes I'm bringing this up now) rather than relying on the main event names, especially if they happen to be on the other brand. Why should WWE be comfortable with just John Cena and Randy Orton when there's an entire roster behind them mostly going to waste (arguably with more universal talent). Cena will always be Cena and Orton will always be Orton, by why is that enough? Yes, WWE leans on Cena and depends on him to draw, that's the reality of how things work right now. But is that how it SHOULD work? Is that the only way it COULD work? The answer to that riddle is "No."

Let's take a look at the hourly TV breakdowns. Let's say it's a regular four week period with one PPV.

Raw on USA: 8 hours + overruns
Smackdown on SyFy: 8 hours
Superstars (online): 4 hours
NXT (online): 4 hours
PPV: 3 hours

What we have every month is at least 24 hours of free viewing and 3 hours of PPV time. Why go through the exercise of figuring that out? Because it pokes a gigantic whole in the notion that separate PPVs are needed to give younger less-developed wrestlers more opportunities. The brand extension served its purpose by splitting up the 16 hours of main TV time. The opportunities present themselves on television. Furthermore, halving the roster for a PPV may have the effect of making the "Big 4" PPVs special, but at what cost? WWE has already separated the weekly shows, the majority of WWE's total airtime. The purpose of that was to make the PPVs more special, all of them. Cutting PPVs altogether is a better option than holding half-assed PPVs like WWE did in the last decade.

And with that, let's go into the actual quality of the shows. Defiant argues that the PPV split would simply be a greater challenge for the writers and would force WWE to push guys who have been stalled by a lack of opportunities. To an extent, I completely agree. The John Cena show can get boring and formulaic. The midcard doesn't get the attention I think it should. However, with increased opportunities comes increased responsibility. A PPV headlined by a match between, say, Alex Riley vs. Dolph Ziggler would be really fresh. But can these two guys carry a feud? Would people pay to watch this? Let me be clear: I'm not definitively saying the answer is no. I'm saying that they haven't proven to me they can do it. With split PPVs, more pressure is on the midcard to support the show, pressure those guys aren't accustomed to handling.

"So what?," Defiant says. In Defiant's eyes, there are short-term problems but long-term benefits. I think he's discounting a lot of harm that can be done to superstars who might otherwise be on the rise. When you "bury" a guy on Superstars or keep him off TV completely, in a sense you're protecting him. Once you push him up to a high position, if he fails, that stench will linger on him for a long time. I already mentioned Dolph Ziggler. He's a great example of what I mean. He debuted on Raw with the silly "handshake" gimmick. He was introduced to the audience slowly. He got a couple of short matches on TV and made an impression on the TV audience. He was built up slowly, slowly, slowly to the midcard. If Raw had a PPV to run by itself, he'd either have been forced into a feud or kept off TV entirely. His opportunity to get on TV was greater because Raw didn't have to work by itself to promote a 3 hour PPV.

My second argument relates to financials, and I don't have a lot more to add to what I wrote above. It's more than obvious that WWE will make less money by taking John Cena and Randy Orton off at least four PPVs a year. Defiant's claim is that WWE should be able to rely on more than just John Cena and Randy Orton. Of course they can! But there's a big difference between "can" and "should." Cena and Orton are the two guys with the most heat, the most marketability, the most popularity in the WWE right now. The smartest thing WWE can do is feature them as much as possible. Again, splitting up the TV shows accomplishes every goal Defiant wants to achieve. That was a financial sacrifice made by WWE for the sake of the future. Splitting up the PPVs is therefore unnecessary.

Now, to a few specific points made by Defiant (this is where I get nitpicky):

#1

(didn't this year's "Over The Limit" produce the lowest buys in, what, five years?)

I don't think the final numbers are available yet, but you are right about the expected numbers. I worry you're using this as example that combining the shows for PPVs was a mistake. On the contrary. The mistake was booking a terrible PPV, with a predictable "I Quit" match with Cena, a heat-free Orton/Christian rematch, and Cole/Lawler III getting the most promotion going into the show. Across both Raw and Smackdown, both writing teams couldn't produce anything resembling a quality show. And you want these teams to each handle their own shows?

#2

Let's assume the "Big Four" are still combined-roster events. If anything, this should give the fan more incentive to purchase a PPV; the rare opportunity to witness the big names and fueds of each roster on one show.

To my understanding, the Big Four have consistently and significantly outdrawn the other PPVs. They have inherent name value (and better cards) that result in more buys. And as I said earlier, further sabotaging the "Little Eight" for the sake of the Big Four is a strange proposition.

#3

And just to add on to that last point before I finish up, another application of this theory to boost PPV interest would be "Bragging Rights". Like Summerslam, this PPV is redundant because it's a PPV we've already seen this year tenfold, we've seen countless PPV's in the year already that feature both Raw and Smackdown...

WWE agrees with Defiant. But they're doing the opposite. They're keeping combined PPVs and getting rid of Bragging Rights. The October 2011 PPV will be titled "Vengeance." They simply don't care that much about the brand split; it exists solely to get more people on TV.

#4

Assume WWE tries the brand-exclusive PPV format for, say, 18 months, the concept does not succeed as well as intended, the calender is returned to our current format, and ultimately I am wrong.

Defiant accidentally reveals the weakness of his own argument here. He states above that this is a long-term solution. Yet even he concedes WWE wouldn't give it the chance it would need to succeed! This is the crux of my third argument, which I'll sneak in here tomorrow.