Jump to content

Brand split coming to a end?


Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
They really don't need the brand split to have two touring crews. They used to have 3 or 4 crews sometimes back in the 80s and there was no artificial brand split back then. They should merge the world titles and just have a single brand name of WWE.

 

Back in the 80s they had the tag champs headlining large high school gyms. Nowdays they have a world title match in an arena on every house show, even if they've got 2 shows on the same night. It's a different game. And "See the superstars of Smackdown!" is a bit more of a solid guarantee of what you'll see than "See some of the superstars of WWE!", and the guarantee of that is what sells tickets to people who are on the fence. Obviously, the fact that they have 2 rosters means they could tour exactly how they do now, just without the show names attached to each touring group, but the brand split makes it nice and easy to label and advertise. There's no advantage gained by doing away with that, especially as now they have the Supershow concept to just stick whoever they want on whatever TV show anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a business point of view, you can see why they would want to keep it. From a fan point of view, I'd like to see them do away with it. Smackdown's star power is at an all-time low and they often just rinse and repeat the same matches each week. Two shows with a bit of energy about them rather than one would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really don't need the brand split to have two touring crews. They used to have 3 or 4 crews sometimes back in the 80s and there was no artificial brand split back then. They should merge the world titles and just have a single brand name of WWE.

 

Back in the 80s they had the tag champs headlining large high school gyms. Nowdays they have a world title match in an arena on every house show, even if they've got 2 shows on the same night. It's a different game. And "See the superstars of Smackdown!" is a bit more of a solid guarantee of what you'll see than "See some of the superstars of WWE!", and the guarantee of that is what sells tickets to people who are on the fence. Obviously, the fact that they have 2 rosters means they could tour exactly how they do now, just without the show names attached to each touring group, but the brand split makes it nice and easy to label and advertise. There's no advantage gained by doing away with that, especially as now they have the Supershow concept to just stick whoever they want on whatever TV show anyway.

What's wrong with "See the Superstars of WWE!"? I'd say that was a better guarantee than "See the Superstars of Smackdown!"

 

House show business was far better in the 80s than it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with "See the Superstars of WWE!"? I'd say that was a better guarantee than "See the Superstars of Smackdown!"

 

House show business was far better in the 80s than it is now.

 

Because if you see the superstars of the WWE and Cena doesn't show up you're gonna be pissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with "See the Superstars of WWE!"? I'd say that was a better guarantee than "See the Superstars of Smackdown!"

 

House show business was far better in the 80s than it is now.

 

Because if you see the superstars of the WWE and Cena doesn't show up you're gonna be pissed.

 

Exactly, plus the house show business in the 80's pretty much was their business, its now a small chunk of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

House shows are still a massive part of WWE's business and will always be in they are a thriving promotion. Both international touring and touring around the United States is very lucrative. Thats where a lot of the money from merchandise comes through as well. The wrestlers make the bulk of their cash from house show revenue.

 

They did a $950,000 gate in January, followed by a $750,000 gate a few weeks later. Although attendance is lower than in previous years, the house shows go a long way to paying for what it takes to produce a Monday Night Raw episode every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with "See the Superstars of WWE!"? I'd say that was a better guarantee than "See the Superstars of Smackdown!"

 

House show business was far better in the 80s than it is now.

 

Because if you see the superstars of the WWE and Cena doesn't show up you're gonna be pissed.

Don't remember people being pissed off about not seeing Hogan on house shows in the early 90s. As long as they advertise what matches will be on and put "card subject to change" at the bottom, I can't see the problem. Having a unified world champion that can be identified as the focal point of WWE is by far the most important thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they used to run what were called 'A' and 'B' house shows prior to the brand split?

 

Don't see much problem if they revert to this formula- effectively having, say, Randy Orton headlining one set of shows, John Cena the other. It would probably end up being a lot more evenly balanced in terms of star level on the resulting cards than the brand split has ever had, even down to the TV shows.

 

Dare I say it, would also probably mean a quite heavy cull of the rosters too, which would surely be no bad thing, and again possibly lead to those who are left on the payroll being given more worth while storylines, etc. Providing, of course, they did things properly. Which is always a worry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dare I say it, would also probably mean a quite heavy cull of the rosters too, which would surely be no bad thing, and again possibly lead to those who are left on the payroll being given more worth while storylines, etc. Providing, of course, they did things properly. Which is always a worry...

 

Not Nesesarily. Personally I'd run it as if there was an unofficial brand split. You'd have two shows, two sets of writers, whom are giving specific talent and specific targets, but with the ability for talent to move from one show to another without the need for convoluted draft shows etc. That way you would still need the same number of talent to fill up the two shows.

 

To be honest this is what's already going on anyway (smackdown focuses on fued "a", raw on fued "b") but without the completely unnecessary brand split which is near enough redundant now anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they used to run what were called 'A' and 'B' house shows prior to the brand split?

 

Don't see much problem if they revert to this formula- effectively having, say, Randy Orton headlining one set of shows, John Cena the other. It would probably end up being a lot more evenly balanced in terms of star level on the resulting cards than the brand split has ever had, even down to the TV shows.

 

Dare I say it, would also probably mean a quite heavy cull of the rosters too, which would surely be no bad thing, and again possibly lead to those who are left on the payroll being given more worth while storylines, etc. Providing, of course, they did things properly. Which is always a worry...

 

Yes for a long time during the boom of late 80's Early 90's this happend. Between 1985-1987 ish I believe they actually ran 3 touring troupes. As mentioned before The 3 major titles tended to headline each show and/ or a featured upper level guy/ feud with the rest just being jobbers and filler again. The top troupe was Hogan who normally sold out and the boys earned the most, then you had the IC troupe which usually had a Piper of JYD as well and would get respectable gates, finally you had the third troupe with possibly the tag titles and they would only get and expect to get a couple of thousand at there shows. The old High Flyers Collesium release was great at demonstrating this as some of the matches are clearly in Gym's and in front of half empty crowds.

 

In those days they used to embed adverts for house shows in the local TV showings and have the wrestlers do promos on "when they come to town X,Y,Z". Thats why the SD & Raw branding is so important now as it gives them an out of wasting TV time on promoting these shows too much and committing to matches etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Important difference is that back then, they had a crew of guys who'd been stars in territories. So they had guys who were genuine draws right through the card. They weren't filming TV twice a week every week either. They had TV in the can. And house shows featured name vs. name matches that rarely happened on TV too. It's a different world now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

On the subject of house shows having name vs name matches, am I right in thinking that back then, the core business model was essentially that they had TV in order to sell the house shows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...