Why does WWE tend to...

[CM Punk]

Make a match for a PPV, but then on the next night on RAW they have a rematch.
This really bothers me, like really, what is the point? You can further a feud until the next PPV, but then out of nowhere they just have the match on RAW.

#StupidBooking #WWELogic

For example: Wrestlemania 28 - Randy Orton Vs. Kane
Kane beats Orton and then on RAW? Maybe Smackdown they have a rematch and another match at Extreme Rules.
Just stupid imo.

 

[Senhor Perfect]

It is insulting, especially if you shelled out the money for the PPV the night before.

 

[Jonathan]

Rhodes Scholars beat Cara/Mysterio at TLC.
On RAW, Rey beats Sandow, Rhodes beats Cara.

It's typical WWE.

 

[Leo C]

Yeah, they tend to do that. Does sound a bit disrespectful, for the lack of a better term, to the people who bought the PPV, although not necessarily the match was as good, but anyway.

 

[Cloud]

I suppose it's for all those who didn't watch the PPV!

 

[Stopspot]

It's an attempt at feud progression. They have simply forgotten that feuds can also be progressed through promos, attacks, backstage confrontations and other means than in ring action.

 

[Rysenberg]

Laziness.

 

[catlady]

They do it to progress the story and fuel the feuds. They didn't technically have any rematch. They had completely different matches that happened to have some of the same people. Cena and Ziggler was a mixed tag, Sin Cara faught Rhodes one on one, not a rematch. It has nothing to do with who payed for the PPV or laziness. It is a formula that works. You have to keep things going. If they had random matched that didn't play into the story lines, everyone would be like "wth is going on!?".

 

[Danielson]

I think it's all about trying to resell the PPV. In the states they offer you to buy it cheaper and cheaper for the next two weeks.

 

[CM Punk]

They could progress it in a different way.
Like we had Chris Jericho Vs. Dolph Ziggler on Summerslam and again the next night. (I'll let that slide because Jericho was leaving.)
But there are other ways to progress feuds as in interfering in there match, cutting promos, attacking them on there entrance, ect.
Pretty much you're wasting money if you're going to get that match the next night on RAW imo.

 

[juvie123]

2 reasons.

1. Bad Bookers

2. Vince is Blue

3. They want to finish the feud.

4. They want they other guy to win. example: Cena beat hbk at wm. hbk beat cena on raw the next night which was less relevant. they didnt wanna make hbk look bad so they gave him a win the next night.

 

[catlady]

They could progress it in a different way.
Like we had Chris Jericho Vs. Dolph Ziggler on Summerslam and again the next night. (I'll let that slide because Jericho was leaving.)
But there are other ways to progress feuds as in interfering in there match, cutting promos, attacking them on there entrance, ect.
Pretty much you're wasting money if you're going to get that match the next night on RAW imo.

If you are serious about getting into wrestling, you will learn why they do it and why they stick to the formula they have for years. They can't have over lapping story lines if a feud is not over yet, also they can not just make random matches for everyone other wise that would not make sense. I understand what you mean by having match interference, like Cena is fighting, say R-Truth, and Ziggler interferes. They do do this, but not this close to wrestle mania. Its crunch time. Its all about selling the reality of an emotion behind the feuds and keeping the people hyped. I admit, they sometimes over do it, but like I said, it is a formula that has worked for years.

 

[CM Punk]

If you are serious about getting into wrestling, you will learn why they do it and why they stick to the formula they have for years. They can't have over lapping story lines if a feud is not over yet, also they can not just make random matches for everyone other wise that would not make sense. I understand what you mean by having match interference, like Cena is fighting, say R-Truth, and Ziggler interferes. They do do this, but not this close to wrestle mania. Its crunch time. Its all about selling the reality of an emotion behind the feuds and keeping the people hyped. I admit, they sometimes over do it, but like I said, it is a formula that has worked for years.

I'm not talking about a fans perspective but rather a business perspective.
If you're paying to see a match on a PPV, it's money's worth. But than the next night on RAW, if it's free, well... that's just stupid.
Pretty much a fan wasted their money on something they would see for free the next night.

 

[Farooq]

Well usually the matches are half the quality they are in pay-per-views. They are almost never as good as they are in the PPVs. I suppose they do this just to keep people glued to the television, that way they think they're getting a PPV quality match, but they aren't.

 

[catlady]

I'm not talking about a fans perspective but rather a business perspective.
If you're paying to see a match on a PPV, it's money's worth. But than the next night on RAW, if it's free, well... that's just stupid.
Pretty much a fan wasted their money on something they would see for free the next night.

I get what you are saying but like I said, it is a formula. Not just about the fans but the business. It has nothing to do with who payed for the PPV and who didn't. Its about building character to matches and story lines. It is a business technique in wrestling. They even do it in the indies.