Jump to content

No Mercy pulls dismal numbers


The Icon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Credit To Rajah WWE & IWD.com

No Mercy was a complete failure for WWE in terms of attendance & Buyrates.

 

The upper deck was entirely blocked off at the Continental Airlines Arena for the No Mercy PPV. They were able to fill only 9500 of the available 19,000 seats in the arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No Mercy was a complete failure for WWE in terms ofa attendance & Buyrates.

 

The upper deck was entirely blocked off at the Continental Airlines Arena for the No Mercy PPV. They were able to fill only 9500 of the available 19,000 seats in the arena.

 

That explains attendance, what about the buyrates you speak of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but unless you are a diehard wrestling fan, which most of us here are, would you honestly have gone to see a PPV headlined by JBL v Undertaker?

 

I mean if someone as obsessed with wrestling as I am wouldn't (unless given free tickets), then how can the WWE expect to pull in decent numbers with such a shite, shite PPV card.

 

Yet I bet you JBL remains champion and this exciting feud continues. People want big names, and when there aren't big names people want exciting gimmicks or a reason to go watch. No Mercy offered none of that.

 

Mind you it is notoriously a pish PPV in my opinion. Wasn't that where the "FIRST EVER Father v Daughter" match was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you obviously haven't heard of these then lol.

Royal Rumble '91

3.1

 

Survivor Series '90

3.0

 

Summer Slam '90

3.8

 

WrestleMania VI

3.8

 

Survivor Series '89

3.3

 

Summer Slam '89

4.8

 

WrestleMania V

5.9

 

 

Summer Slam '88

4.5

 

WrestleMania IV

6.5

 

Survivor Series '87

7.0

 

WrestleMania III

10.2

 

Info courtsey of PWI's annual thing.

Edited by The Icon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh but aren't those buyrates measured in a different way?

 

I've always been confused by buyrate numbers... I mean don't the 1.3s and 1.7s come from a different way of taking the numbers, since the older they are the better buyrates there seems to be.

 

Otherwise someone explain to me where the numbers come from :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Byurates are suspect anyway. Did you klnow if a house has 2 or 3 (or 20) TV's all tuned to a different station only one (the main one with the 'box') counts as a 'Buyrate'. So thousands of people could have watched a show & it wouldn't even count.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh but aren't those buyrates measured in a different way?

 

I've always been confused by buyrate numbers... I mean don't the 1.3s and 1.7s come from a different way of taking the numbers, since the older they are the better buyrates there seems to be.

 

Otherwise someone explain to me where the numbers come from :)

 

 

Yes they are measured differently. I think WMXX was the highest drawing card ever and it got like a 2.1 or something, but it got more buys than WM3 that drew a 10.02 or whatever...its all measured differently now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you obviously haven't heard of these then lol.

Royal Rumble '91

3.1

 

Survivor Series '90

3.0

 

Summer Slam '90

3.8

 

WrestleMania VI

3.8

 

Survivor Series '89

3.3

 

Summer Slam '89

4.8

 

WrestleMania V

5.9

 

 

Summer Slam '88

4.5

 

WrestleMania IV

6.5

 

Survivor Series '87

7.0

 

WrestleMania III

10.2

 

Info courtsey of PWI's annual thing.

 

Nope, I guess I haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly did they expect the attendances and buy rates to be?

 

Thing is, how good a PPV is on the night has no bearing on attendance and buy rate. Those things are decided by how good people perceive the ppv to be before the show.

 

whether No Mercy ended up being good or not (and I personally would say not) doesn't matter, it's the way it was built up and the card, which basically were crap. Of course the buy rate sucked.

 

Lets go back to say 2000. Before the roster split, when WWE was putting out decent television. Could you imagine at that point the idea of Bradshaw Vs Undertaker headlining a PPV? Anyone who suggested that would have got laughed at for days. Now of course they have fewer big stars, and still insist on splitting those fewer big stars over two shows which means we get stuck with awful main event's like Bradshaw and Undertaker which will never draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its wrong to blame the roster split though (unless you weren't actually meaning to there)... its just farcical booking.

 

The only think about the roster split in my opinion that isn't really working (perhaps again because of the booking) is the separate PPVs... unless they offer something special or make them cheaper there is no point in buying them.

 

On both rosters there are plenty of guys who could easily be big stars, I think you're just going by Heindenrich and co on Smackdown. On Raw the main event scene is solid, with all marketable guys like HHH, Benoit, HBK and Orton (though you could argue none of them are real difference makers at the moment)... Smackdown is a problem yeh but it just doesn't need to be.

 

RVD, Booker T, Cena, Big Show, Taker, Angle... there's 6 decent main eventers/main event material for ya right there, its just that its an absolute farce at the moment.

 

I've always been a fan of the roster split... a lot of good TV has come from it, and some of the joint brand PPVs have been just as good if not better than some of the 2000 stuff. The Roster split has given us a lot of good fresh stuff you know... We wouldn't have had the great TV that was the Angle, Lesnar and Show triangle for instance... and HHH would without a doubt been the centre of attention on a non-brand separated WWE.

 

And to be honest I don't think we can honestly say that Vince wouldn't be pushing the big useless guys like Tomko, Morgan and Heindenrich even if the roster split was gone.

 

No Mercy needn't have been a disaster (on paper at least) if JBL wasn't WWE champion. It's wierd... Benoit proved his critics wrong as champion... Bradshaw has proved his right.

 

I've said nobody is a draw these days, but some guys can certainly turn fans off. I'd say the same for any other useless midcarder 4 life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I was meaning to point out that the roster split is crap, but I wasn't meaning to blame it solely for the problem. Obviously rubbish booking is a huge part of it. But I don't like the roster split and havne't done since its inception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the roster split is good if only for one reason: Stars get more air time now instead of star A (ahem naming no names) hogging all the time on both SD & Raw midcarders get more time. Well thats the theory anyway doesn't alway pan out that way of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you do with all the talent though? Surely that'll just allow competition to come back' date=' and WWE don't want that surely?[/quote']

 

I'd let them go. Nobody cares about ATrain, Val Venis, FBI, Tomko, Jindrak, Polumbo etc....I'd say about 75% of the roster are dead weight taking up money, and nobody gives a rats ass about any of them. Put all the main guys back together, ditch half of al the titles (All you need is 1 World, the IC, the Tag and the womens titles) and then you will have a better show, no doubt.

 

As for competition, WWE may not want that, but they NEED it. If they dont get it, they will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It changes as the scope for households change. I mean think how many more people have cable now, than they did then? thus its all proportional, and considering more people, it means more shows, more options, re-runs, time zones etc etc, thus why they are different. But whatever way you look at it, its still an awful buyrate. Anyone know what WCW's dying buyrates were?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...