What's the point of a brand split?

[XL]

What's the point in building these brands and pushing something like the Draft Lottery when people are moving/appearing on different shows all the time?

This week alone we've had RVD on Raw, Nitro & Kennedy on ECW and Umaga & Khali on SmackDown! and if you add No Way Out you have Lashley, HBK & Cena appearing on a SD! brand PPV.

I thought their plan was to make the brand distinctions as rigid as possible and to create "competition" between them. I know it's happened a lot over this last year (I.E. Angle from SD! to Raw, back to SD! and then to ECW or Orton's Raw to SD! and back) but 5 (or 8) guys crossing brands in one week!?

Come on!

[Kane Knight]

Thank you for stating what has been more eloquently stated by many before you.

[Kane Knight]

Anyway, I agree. The idea was to have competition between the two plans. But then they discovered that their flagship show met trouble negotiating when the "other" show was actually competing with it.

[Übermensch]

I don't think the point was really to create "competition" amoungst the shows...they don't air against each other, and they're owned by the same company, and thus, don't compete for talent. I don't even know if the point was really to create distinct idenities for each show. The purpose of the roster split is really just to make room for more stars to develop, which hopefully leads to increased viewership, merchindise sales, ect. The other purpose I'm pretty sure was to be able to increase live event profit by doing multiple tours at once. I don't really see how trading wrestlers from brand to brand goes against that.

As for wrestlers appearing on shows other than their own, that's something that has always happened before big PPVs, Wrestlermania especially. They need to build up the matches as much as possible, and having wrestlers cross over does just that.

[El Fangel]

Anyway, I agree. The idea was to have competition between the two plans. But then they discovered that their flagship show met trouble negotiating when the "other" show was actually competing with it.

[Blue Demon]

Thank you for stating ALEYALEAYLEAYEA.

[XL]

I know it's been discussed before but I can't remember a time when there were so many guys moving between shows.

I know it's the run up to WrestleMania so I expect a couple of interpromotional programmes but wasn't expecting it to this degree.

It just makes me think that if they spent a little more time building people on each show they wouldn't need to resort to the fairly cheap cross brand fueds. For instance the way Kennedy has been used these last few weeks. He's been built up as a solid upper midcard guy but since the Rumble he's lost 5 Title matches.

It's all well and good creating the impression that Kennedy is championship level but if they keep using him to not only put the champ on his show over but help put the champion from another show over then people (marks) are gonna stop buying him as a viable contender.

I think what I'm trying to say is I wish they'd build up a believable contender on the ECW show rather than have the ECW champ have to cross over.

Cross brand mathces are always billed as big, one off matches. At WrestleMania there's rumoured to be Umaga v Lashley, MNM v Hardys, Kane v Khali, Melina v Ashley and we can count the Money in the Bank match if you like. That's 5 matches that are cross brand.

[addy2hotty]

Personally, I don't think having Ken Kennedy constantly lose championship matches on the B and Z-shows is the best way to showcase him as 'championship level'.

[El Fangel]

I agree, a main-event championship jobber? What the frack?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Things would be a lot more fun if the WWE dropped the brand split. If they could maybe squeeze in an hour more of wrestling television each week, things would be amazing.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think wrestling generally runs better when there is some kind of chaos. Anarchy is the element which bred Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and pretty much the entire Attitude era. The brand split is pretty much the WWE trying to apply order to things. Let everything just go. Have Vince "lose his mind" (which some argue may have already happened) when he shaves his head, so he just dissolves the brand split, makes Jonathan Coachman his Assistant while his hair grows back, Theodore Long is General Manager (like how Mick Foley used to be commissioner), and Coach just comes in and overrides him to give the heels some advantages now and then.

[Kane Knight]

I don't think the point was really to create "competition" amoungst the shows...they don't air against each other, and they're owned by the same company, and thus, don't compete for talent.

And wrestling isn't real. Could it be we're discussing an angle?

[Kane Knight]

I know it's been discussed before but I can't remember a time when there were so many guys moving between shows.

Seems to happen every year. This time, it's just with less explanation.

[The Optimist]

The real reason is to give more time to the gargantuan number of contracts the WWE employs and keeps from other promotions. Imagine if they only had 5 television hours to satisfy ALL the egos that they employ, people would be quitting left and right.

[The One]

I've said it since day one. The Brand Extension was (and continues to be) one of the worst decissions ever made by WWE. Ever.

They need to bring all the brands together, have Destor unify all the World Titles, and start rebuilding...

[Londoner]

I agree with what alienoid said, this roster split weakens everything imo.

[Xero]

The real reason is to give more time to the gargantuan number of contracts the WWE employs and keeps from other promotions. Imagine if they only had 5 television hours to satisfy ALL the egos that they employ, people would be quitting left and right.
:y:

At this point, if there was a brand split end, half the roster would never be used and the lowest guys you'd have on cards would be guys like Kane, Booker and Benoit.

[Londoner]

^ So we wouldn't get to see guys like Khali/Masters/umaga/? Oh what a loss! I see no reason why wrestlers could not be used...form them into stables to make it easier if you must, that's what they did in the past. The way it is atm, I wouldn't miss half the guys on that roster.

[Xero]

^ So we wouldn't get to see guys like Khali/Masters/umaga/? Oh what a loss!
Put it this way: How many cruserweights are pushed now? How many tag teams are pushed now?

The guys you listed are a step above the guys I listed by WWE standards.

It would come down to one thing: new stars. With the major, established stars eclipsing every aspect of the show you'd have less new talents coming in than you have now.

[The One]

More than half the guys would get canned. And sorry if this sounds mean and shit, but fire them. More than half the roster can't get a reaction to save their lives. It's time to admit this was a failed idea (they already have admited that by having week after week Hardyz, MNM, RKO, Cena, Batista, Lashley, Taker, Michaels and everyone's mom jumping back and forth) and bring it together, cut the dead weight (and there's a TON) and get things working well again. And fucking do away with this total bullshit of multiple World level titles. God that pisses me off. I would rather see SmackDown have the IC Belt as their main prize than this non-historically important World Title bullshit.

Oh and they need to hire Destor to be their new King Shit of Fuck Mountain. :y:

[Londoner]

I don't get what you're saying, hardly any CW's get pushed even with the roster split. And just because the brand split would end, that doesn't mean they have to keep the CW's off the show, with the amount of shows there will be, there would be plenty of time. Think about it, there will be both Raw&Smackdown to have the CW's on rather than just Smackdown. So if anything, it gives them MORE of a chance of getting TV time.

[Kane Knight]

^ So we wouldn't get to see guys like Khali/Masters/umaga/?

Yes, they would be the obvious logical choice. :rofl:

[Xero]

I don't get what you're saying, hardly any CW's get pushed even with the roster split. And just because the brand split would end, that doesn't mean they have to keep the CW's off the show, with the amount of shows there will be, there would be plenty of time. Think about it, there will be both Raw&Smackdown to have the CW's on rather than just Smackdown. So if anything, it gives them MORE of a chance of getting TV time.
Right, but you want to give ample time to each of the feuds. Say there are 10 feuds running, that's roughly 35 wrestlers. Each feud gets 30 minutes a week (segments, matches, interviews, promotions) with at least two getting 45. That comes out to the full 5 hours. Even cutting that down wouldn't leave much for development.

I personally can't see them having a huge roster, keeping their current stars in the spotlight AND building new ones all at the same time.

[Übermensch]

And wrestling isn't real. Could it be we're discussing an angle?

They can and have had an angle or two putting the brands up against one another, but it seems to me that that's just kind of been something they've pulled out of the ass. It doesn't seem to me that competition between brands was on WWE's mind when they went with the brand split. It's never really been ongoing, all it is is another possibility for a crappy angle to pull out of the bag every few years. It's not really something that can be fit into a broad business model for increased profits, which is what the brand split seems to have been.

I still stand by my assertion that competition between brands was not a driving force behind the brand extension.

[Kane Knight]

They can and have had an angle or two putting the brands up against one another, but it seems to me that that's just kind of been something they've pulled out of the ass. It doesn't seem to me that competition between brands was on WWE's mind when they went with the brand split. It's never really been ongoing, all it is is another possibility for a crappy angle to pull out of the bag every few years. It's not really something that can be fit into a broad business model for increased profits, which is what the brand split seems to have been.

I still stand by my assertion that competition between brands was not a driving force behind the brand extension.

They pretty much started it running with competition as an angle, and they've let it drop off. Shocker. Like everything else they try and build up.

Was it their sole intention? Probably not. But then, your assessment seems horri,bly unrealistic (Every few years? You act like it's been going on for a decade and brought up like twice).

I stand by my assertion that your initial response was silly and utterly ignored the context. :p

[Londoner]

Right, but you want to give ample time to each of the feuds. Say there are 10 feuds running, that's roughly 35 wrestlers. Each feud gets 30 minutes a week (segments, matches, interviews, promotions) with at least two getting 45. That comes out to the full 5 hours. Even cutting that down wouldn't leave much for development.

I personally can't see them having a huge roster, keeping their current stars in the spotlight AND building new ones all at the same time.


Once they release all the crap The One listed in the other thread, then the CW's would have loads of time. Not that I care about that division anyway, mind you.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't get this idea where people assume there would be less room for talent. The number of shows would remain the same, ECW would just need a name change. You wouldn't put main event talent on each show every show, you'd space it out. A Hardcore Match between Rob Van Dam and Sabu to open up RAW, then a women's match, then a Tag Team Title Match between London & Kendrick and MNM, then Umaga facing Carlito, followed by John Cena and King Booker in the main event. Then the former ECW show could have Val Venis getting beaten by Finlay, The Hardys beating Lance Cade & Trevor Murdoch and finally Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker working a #1 Contender Match.

Shows could build to another show that week. Talent would have more room to grow, as they'd be working more, and they'd be working with a more diverse group of wrestlers.

Ric Flair may actually become a manager if this happens, and Cryme Tyme might actually go back to OVW and get the time to perfect their ring work that they need. Some dead weight could be cut, but really, you don't need to cut anything, you just rotate things a little more. The WWE Champion is the only person who really need to be featured consistently on at least two shows every week.

[St. Jimmy]

Fire Them, Let TNA and ROH sort them out.

[PullMyFinger]

Not that WWE fears TNA or anything, but I think that's another reason why they'll keep the brand extension. Because quite frankly if they were to unify the rosters, a lot of wrestlers would be released and some might show up on TNA. I think WWE's gameplan right now is prevent as much wrestlers as possible from going to TNA.

[NeanderCarl]

Why is NOBODY giving the obvious reason for the brand split? Money.

That's ALL the WWE cares about nowadays. Okay, making money has always been a priority, but in 2007 they want to milk every last cent out of the business.

No brand split, as mentioned by somebody in an earlier post, means less TV time for the lower guys. The result of that is that there are less recognisable or bankable guys on the roster with TV exposure, making it very difficult to put together two crews of house show line-ups that have a hope of drawing a sizable crowd on a regular basis.

Without the ability to run two house shows a night, WWE's income from touring will (more or less) drop in half.

No matter what company line they feed about "competing with themselves" or "allowing newer guys to develop" or "giving more guys a chance to appear on TV".... the ulterior motive was ALWAYS making more money. The others are a byproduct, with varying levels of success. Since the brand split, they have been rushing up guys who are not ready or bringing back guys who are well past their prime, just to fill up four (now five) hours of first-run TV each week.

[Kane Knight]

I don't get this idea where people assume there would be less room for talent.
Because they're ignoring all evidence to the contrary?

[Kane Knight]

No brand split, as mentioned by somebody in an earlier post, means less TV time for the lower guys. The result of that is that there are less recognisable or bankable guys on the roster with TV exposure, making it very difficult to put together two crews of house show line-ups that have a hope of drawing a sizable crowd on a regular basis.

Without the ability to run two house shows a night, WWE's income from touring will (more or less) drop in half.

Yeah...No.

You're assuming a lot of things, including WWE's starpower is always at the house shows. I've been to house shows where the biggest guy on the show was probably Rikishi. Lots of lackluster or midcard talent go on house shows, especially when you consider that half the ME scene wasn't touring house shows for a while there. You're assuming that the number of house shows has actually doubled, and it hasn't. WWE would already split their talent. There was just no artificial division. There would be house shows in NH when Raw or Smackdown was doing one of the actual big arenas. You're assuming that their business model is profitable now, when they were doing fine on a seemingly "bad" business model by your reckoning. Possibly better, as they used to tour larger arenas, even for house shows. You're assuming that the primary issue with house shows is financial, instead of convenience, and assuming they would have to halve the shows.

And that's enough for now.

[NeanderCarl]

You're assuming that I believe the old way to be a "bad" business model, which I did not say. You're assuming that the variables of the WWE during their hot period are the same as they are now, when WWE probably could have sold out a medium sized arena in 2000 with Steve Blackman in the main event - when WWE split the brands, they were on a slight downturn but they couldn't have been aware that their touring business would take the hit it would later in the year and over the next few years. Comparing the house show business of 1998-2001 to today is not really an argument or an answer: the climate is different so it purely speculative. You could maybe say that the brand split has actually led to a decrease in house show business, and there are probably a lot of arguments to support this. My point is that, obviously, that was never WWE's intention. Their plan was to make more money, not less.

By splitting the brands, they tried to give the impression that their two touring brands were equal, thus being able to promote two "equal" house shows per night, rather than the A-Show/B-Show technique of the past. Good in theory, hasn't worked in practice due to their inability to establish SmackDown as being on the same level as Raw. Also, in the years prior to the brand split, the B-Shows were not as regular an occurance as today.

You're assuming that if the brand split ended, WWE would simply go back to the old method of promoting house shows, therefore the schedule wouldn't be halved. However, ending the brand split would almost immediately cut the number of marketable, TV-exposed talent, therefore they could either take a risk and run two shows per night, featuring an undercard of guys who haven't been on TV for weeks/months and the Heat crew, or they could put all of their marketable talent onto one house show and probably draw a bigger crowd than the two depleted shows put together. Maybe they could hold matinee shows in the afternoon and evening shows with the same crew, as they used to in the 80s, in which case they could still run the same number of shows, but would double the wrestlers workloads, leading to more injuries and burnouts.

Hell, I'm assuming that you're assuming that I'm assuming that this entire argument is based on assumptions and speculation, which it is, and neither of us can be proven correct until/unless it ever occurs. So I assume we're both right.