Paid Members PunkStep Posted June 25, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 25, 2016 You think they'd only lose a small number of subscribers if they DOUBLE their fee? Bearing in mind it'd be something like three times what Netflix costs, and that's the market they've entered into. Just because it's still more affordable than the PPV model doesn't mean people will pay it, considering they've been used to not paying for PPVs for two years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Are there four months in a year now? Because if so charging for the big four PPVs isn't doubling it. It is the option to pay for Special Events, while getting extra brand exclusive Events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Â 1. "fuck them tho they can just watch shitty streams" 2. ??? 3. PROFIT Fuck the minority who don't want to pay an extra tenner, most will. The profit part comes from the majority of people who will.Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Â Â 1. "fuck them tho they can just watch shitty streams" 2. ??? 3. PROFIT Fuck the minority who don't want to pay an extra tenner, most will. The profit part comes from the majority of people who will.Source?Years of them building up Wrestlemania as the most important event of the wrestling calendar while making huge money. Put a match at the top worth paying for (which they'd easily cover with the extra revenue) and people will buy it for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Â Â Â 1. "fuck them tho they can just watch shitty streams" 2. ??? 3. PROFIT Fuck the minority who don't want to pay an extra tenner, most will. The profit part comes from the majority of people who will.Source?Years of them building up Wrestlemania as the most important event of the wrestling calendar while making huge money. Put a match at the top worth paying for (which they'd easily cover with the extra revenue) and people will buy it for the most part. I'd probably rather just order it on Box Office if I had to log in and pay any extra on the Network. It's the smallest of hassles for a cost saving but I really am that lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 I prefer watching stuff on Sky. Find it easier to fast forward etc. If I had the option I'd stick with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briefcase Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 I think the quality is much better on Sky.  The Network seems to have issues with the streaming, buffering and sound is a bit inconsistent sometimes.  Probably the wrong thread, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016     1. "fuck them tho they can just watch shitty streams" 2. ??? 3. PROFIT Fuck the minority who don't want to pay an extra tenner, most will. The profit part comes from the majority of people who will.Source?Years of them building up Wrestlemania as the most important event of the wrestling calendar while making huge money. Put a match at the top worth paying for (which they'd easily cover with the extra revenue) and people will buy it for the most part.I'd probably rather just order it on Box Office if I had to log in and pay any extra on the Network. It's the smallest of hassles for a cost saving but I really am that lazy. Your laziness encourages you to go through more effort to save £0.05? (Assuming Sky charge £19.95. Saw something about that but I havent ordered since it was the old price.)  It would be a better saving in America which is a much larger market than UK. Their PPVs are like $40. The subscription plus purchasing the event is still half that. Plus people would have the option to not buy the PPV at all. WWE could even still do their free month, but you have to pay for the event, so new subscribers pay $10 total.  Obviously it isn't something I particularly want them to do, but they are a business. If they can get a few extra million dollars a year in revenue it's obvious they would. I predict it will start with Wrestlemania 2018 to test the waters, then the following year all the big four will be at an extra cost. It will be announced on WWE.com and met with a similar entitlement to the Full Sail crowd thinking the should get Takeover. People will moan for a bit, swear they will refuse to pay it and then the magic of Wrestlemania will make them cave at the last minute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mole Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Wrestlemania was like $60 or something, maybe more for HD. Â The WWE would have to charge the same price as the cable companies and remember they only get half, they maybe do a deal that if you are a network subscriber, you can get a $10 off but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraxSpago Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016      1. "fuck them tho they can just watch shitty streams" 2. ??? 3. PROFIT Fuck the minority who don't want to pay an extra tenner, most will. The profit part comes from the majority of people who will.Source?Years of them building up Wrestlemania as the most important event of the wrestling calendar while making huge money. Put a match at the top worth paying for (which they'd easily cover with the extra revenue) and people will buy it for the most part.I'd probably rather just order it on Box Office if I had to log in and pay any extra on the Network. It's the smallest of hassles for a cost saving but I really am that lazy.Your laziness encourages you to go through more effort to save £0.05? (Assuming Sky charge £19.95. Saw something about that but I havent ordered since it was the old price.) It would be a better saving in America which is a much larger market than UK. Their PPVs are like $40. The subscription plus purchasing the event is still half that. Plus people would have the option to not buy the PPV at all. WWE could even still do their free month, but you have to pay for the event, so new subscribers pay $10 total.  Obviously it isn't something I particularly want them to do, but they are a business. If they can get a few extra million dollars a year in revenue it's obvious they would. I predict it will start with Wrestlemania 2018 to test the waters, then the following year all the big four will be at an extra cost. It will be announced on WWE.com and met with a similar entitlement to the Full Sail crowd thinking the should get Takeover. People will moan for a bit, swear they will refuse to pay it and then the magic of Wrestlemania will make them cave at the last minute Their main selling point of the network has been you get the PPV's every month for the cost of your subscription, as if they're going to turn round and start charging extra for the so called big 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted June 26, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 26, 2016 The cat is out the bag now. Initially there was talk that the Network would only have the 'B' shows on it because their big shows still did well on PPV. However, WWE decided to be really decent with their fans and offer 'Mania for 9.99 a month for 6 months. Of course, wrestling fans are cheap and entitled so found a way around the 6 month thing so we're now at where we are.  They could potentially make more money charging a crazy increase for 'Mania, but what does that do to subs? Telling the stock market subs dropped by a big number isn't going to do them any favours.  If they want to change the price it has to be a small monthly price increase, similar to what Netflix do now and again. It is something that has been rumoured for a couple of years now. They will do it when they see fit and when they feel they have a steady sub base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Wrestlemania was like $60 or something, maybe more for HD. Â The WWE would have to charge the same price as the cable companies and remember they only get half, they maybe do a deal that if you are a network subscriber, you can get a $10 off but that's about it. Why would they have to charge the same as cable companies? They could charge whatever they like on their own network and they keep a much higher percentage of that than using cable companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted June 26, 2016 Awards Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2016 Can we stop using the term 'Big Four'? Survivor Series is an utter b-show, in no fucking world can it be considered one of the biggest shows of the year. The only thing it has going for it is the fact it's been around ages. If anything, Money In The Bank's got that 4th place slot these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Kat Von D Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Well those are the four WWE want to present as the top four events. It's not something fans picked due to popularity. A successful brand split is an easy way to give Survivor Series a shot in the arm which it really needs if they want it to be in the top four grouping. Â I've said big four so many times to try an ease confusion, but people like PunkStep just seem to be really easily confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted June 26, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted June 26, 2016 Most people are familiar with the colloquialism "Big Four" when it comes to WWE PPVs. Just because they may not turn out to be the best four PPVs in the calendar year doesn't stop them being so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.