Brand Split II - Confirmed

[d-d-d-dAz]

It has nothing to do with the 2 PPVs but if WWE really don't want to do 3 hour Raw's but like the mo ey it brings in, what about a compromise?

 

WWE airs their PPVs on USA Network, 13 days after its aired in the WWE Network, Boxing has been doing it for decades and Sky Sports even does it, usually on a week delay, so why not try it out and Saturday's are usually bad TV nights, so both have nothing to loose really.

 

 

Unfortunately, non-live sports are about as valuable to advertisers as you or I dancing the lambada and saying 'ooh, buy a Dyson'.

 

The only reason Sky do with the PPV fights around 2 weeks after the fact is that by that point the value of the fight is completely dead but long enough to fill a slot with something that isn't 36 episodes of Football Gold.

 

Particularly with a scripted sport I see absolutely no value in a repeat a fortnight later. Especially when the TV will have outpaced the results, by that point. It's not even an internet issue. You'd either have to watch it knowing not just what happened but what the 2 week aftermath has been, or you'd have to avoid watching 2 weeks worth of live Raw's and Smackdown's (which, if done on a large enough scale would end up cannibalising their ad value).

 

It'd be simpler and more valuable just to stick with the 3rd hour.

[tiger_rick]

Is that true for wrestling? Traditionally PPV matches on free TV were always a ratings winner. Obviously the industry has cooled somewhat but I still imagine a cut down version of a PPV would do well in a slot on USA.

[d-d-d-dAz]

In an environment where we have the internet for spoilers, the network for cheap and so much content that a fortnight is practically a millennia, I can't imagine it would do very well.

 

Obviously there's not a direct comparison as that particular experiment hasn't been tried, but I can't see how it could be more valuable than the existing arrangement, with live Raw.

 

Even if the uptake was good, a condensed version of a PPV 13 days after the fact is not going to have ATV appeal, and could easily be recorded to watch later, which murders the value of advertising dead. That's the real appeal of live advertising, you have a captive audience. Even with the reduced numbers the third hour of Raw gets, it still has a lot of people watching Live rather than recorded.

[The Gaffer]

WWE is starting to do so much content. It's absolutely barmy. It's not a complaint either because I'm going to watch it all and everyone has the choice to dip in and out. Something about it is still so ludicrous though. I don't even mind using the term WWE universe anymore because that's clearly what they've done, created an entire culture you can spend all of your free time in if you so desire. What started out as a patronising television buzzword to describe fans has become a pretty accurate, useful term to describe a world that's just always fucking on.

 

Is there anything out there that politely requests as much attention from it's audience should they wish to really be involved, actual sports aside? No nerd franchise has as much video content. Nowhere in a million miles near. And all these other popular fandoms aren't constantly going on around you. It's not like Star Trek is on seventeen times a week and when it's not on the real people who play the fake characters are kind of acting a bit like the fake characters 24/7 on Twitter.

 

It's insane to think about.

[tiger_rick]

In an environment where we have the internet for spoilers, the network for cheap and so much content that a fortnight is practically a millennia, I can't imagine it would do very well.

 

Obviously there's not a direct comparison as that particular experiment hasn't been tried, but I can't see how it could be more valuable than the existing arrangement, with live Raw.

 

Even if the uptake was good, a condensed version of a PPV 13 days after the fact is not going to have ATV appeal, and could easily be recorded to watch later, which murders the value of advertising dead. That's the real appeal of live advertising, you have a captive audience. Even with the reduced numbers the third hour of Raw gets, it still has a lot of people watching Live rather than recorded.

You're possibly/probably right but I'd imagine if you're WWE, it would be about generating a buzz and possibly attracting new/lapsed fans by putting out there what should be the best & most important shows on channels they already have. It'd get good ratings on USA, although possibly not up there with Raw, and it would create a little bit of buzz.

 

It's not something they need to do and it's not a game-changer but it's a little out of the box for them and that's something I think they have to always be looking for in the current environment.

[d-d-d-dAz]

Oh, I don't disagree with doing it for other reasons.

 

But, if the motivation is solely to replace advertising revenue lost by changing the format of Live Raw, then I can't see how it would work.

 

In terms of directing eyes to the product or possibly converting non-subscribers, it'd possibly be worth a punt.

[The Clint]

 

 

Even with the reduced numbers the third hour of Raw gets, it still has a lot of people watching Live rather than recorded.

 

Viewing numbers are still collected over a 7 day period, so if you're watching a programme recorded via Sky Plus or catch up etc it still counts within 7 days of original air date. I know this applies to UK viewing figures anyway.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I'm not talking about consolidated numbers, there's still a significant number of people watching hour 3 Live to make those ad breaks valuable.

 

Figures are collected on a consolidated basis, but overnight figures and Live figures are still recorded.

 

Particularly for live sports, you're non-time shifted viewing is still the bread and butter.

[The Clint]

I'm sure most people that watch Raw LIVE will channel hop during the breaks anyway.

[Statto]

Whilst I don't disagree with the points regarding spoilers rendering wrestling a little bit redundant 14 days later, I think WWE see more re-watch/re-sale value in their footage than a boxing promoter would and therefore would be less amenable to doing the tape delay thing on "free TV".

 

They view their product as a serial drama rather than a sport, but one you're willing to return to re-watch as it's a performance. It's why they bang every one of their PPVs out on DVD, but boxing shows don't.

 

I've watched a few of the week-delayed boxing matches on Sky Sports, but I've never done it not knowing the outcomes - it's to "see what the fight was like", and I think that's where they pitch it.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I'm sure most people that watch Raw LIVE will channel hop during the breaks anyway.

 

Possibly right, but there's currently no better way of gauging the value of ad's than attaching it to the number of viewers watching live, and whether the show is considered ATV.

 

For a non-sport example, GOT currently does around 1.3 million for the 2 o'clock showing, whereas the 9 o'clock showing the following night is around 800,000. Ad's for the former are worth almost nothing compared to the latter.

[PowerButchi]

For what it's worth, wrestling being live as opposed to taped has never actually really moved the needle to a major extent. For example, the taped Raws did as well as the live.

[d-d-d-dAz]

It being first TX, and the brand recognition of Monday Night Raw probably still pushes people to the first showing, whether it's taped or otherwise..

 

A 2 week delayed TX of something the product had lapped wouldn't have the same draw.

 

What is interesting is whether Sky will get just one, or both per month and where they'd put them.

[the_mole]

There is a potential game changer coming next year if Hulu get the go ahead to live stream a set number of channels, which should help stop the future cord cutters in the US.

 

As of right now its just similar to Netflix but if they can add a bunch of live sports and news then that changes everything.

 

Its owned by Fox, Disney & NBC Universal (silent partner) and they want it to have at least 40 channels, for $40 up from the $10 it is now but still much cheaper cthan regular Cable and hope to be in 40 million homes within a year.

 

Fox, Disney & Time Warner all seem to want it but NBC Universal don't want to hurt Comcast who are the biggest cable TV operators right now and their parent company.

 

All those companies have sports divisions and Live News divisions as well as highly rated cable networks.

[Briefcase]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or asked anywhere but what do we think the ratings will be like for Smackdown when it goes live? I know someone said it hasn't done better before when live compared to tapings but those are just one offs and may not have been as heavily promoted.

 

Assuming Smackdown is an equal to Raw (quality of show, superstars etc) will it do better ratings not being up against Monday Night sports or will there likely be more sports/other competition?

 

I ask as many say ratings decline when certain sports are on so wasn't sure if that was sorely a Monday night thing?