Would you pay to see a RAW or Smack Down show?

[Mr. JL]

Just curious...

For hypothetical purposes, say the WWE lost their timeslot on TV. They could not find a new channel to call home or whatever and they decided to go the route that NWA: TNA is going. (Having to pay $10 to see their show)

Would you in fact, pay $10 to see a RAW or Smack Down show?

[The Ravishing One]

Yes, only for RAW

[The Ravishing One]

Raw is better imo and has always been the superior brand

[Kane Knight]

Heh. Two words come to mind...

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO.

The product of either show would have to greatly improve for me to pay that much/month. I think quality's improved on both shows, and I'd prolly be more willing to pay for Smackdown, but I think both shows need to step it up.

[Shaggy]

I might do that if they didnt bring the rosters together. Then you would miss a storyline on one of the shows you miss. Then if they had better matches like TNA has. But I would only get Raw probably. I dont know this is very confusing cause there is PPV prices to think about and everything. God you know what. This would be just a stupid idea if it happened. Good thing this is only a talk about it.

[PorkSoda]

I'd pay to see them both, don't care which one. Or a house show, wouldent care :rant:

[VonErich Lives]

No, although, since Raw is on Spike, and you need Cable or Dish for Spike, most of us pay for it already, in a way.

[Scarface]

Nope. Raw and Smackdown are the only reason I subscribe to sky sports. I already pay for them.

[DMI]

Yes, only for RAW

[AareDub]

If that happened, it would be the end of me watching wrestling. I wouldn't pay for either on a regular basis.

[Kane Knight]

No, although, since Raw is on Spike, and you need Cable or Dish for Spike, most of us pay for it already, in a way.
Well, he's got a point, but most of us are now currently picking up a ton of channels, and probably watching quite a few hours of TV a week.

I'd personally not pay 10/week to pick up the WWE on top of my current cable bill. that's like 1/4+ (depending on how many shows a month) on top of my current expenditures unless they were BRILLIANT shows. they don't have to be perfect, just about 5-10 times better than most of the drivel right now.

[RGWhat316]

Even though I like RAW better, I would pay for SmackDown. UPN in Detroit is starting to annoy me. They got preemptions like once a month. And this past Thursday, there was a missing child alert that ran during the show after every single commercial. Now, I know a missing child is serious, but it wasnt even my area, and it always ran like 5 minutes at a time.

[Rock Bottom]

No. That simple.

[OssMan]

You mean pay every week? If so, then no. Well even just for one night, no.

[The CyNick]

shoot, I should change my vote. I thought you meant would I pay to see a live event. if WWE went the TNA format, hell no I wouldn't pay for it. I haven't ordered a PPV since Mania XIX, so I couldn't see myslef paying for RAW and SD every week.

Its a stupid concept which is shown by the fact that TNA cant make any money.

[DaveWadding]

Yeah, I pay 40$ a month for cable, and basically the only thing I watch IS RAW and Smackdown

[Mr. JL]

I would definitly not pay for RAW but I'd pay for a few Smack Down! shows. I just cannot get enough of the LATINO HEAT! Oh and Rob Van Dam is another reason why I would pay for Smack Down! Man, I would really enjoy seeing a 45 minute Charlie Haas versus Rob Van Dam match. I'm going on record saying that when Charlie Haas gets some more experience that he will be able to take RVD to the limit, similar to Jerry Lynn.


I'd probally just do what I'm doing now for NWA: TNA. Which is just buying the certain shows that peak my interest.
For Example:

The Return of Sting, The Return of Terry Funk, Raven versus Vampiro

[Funky Fly]

Heh. Two words come to mind...

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL NO.

[Kristanna Vola]

Yeah I would pay for it...if I didn't have to pay bills, a car note, etc :p

[Boondock Saint]

Not every week, no. Maybe twice a month but that would be pushing it too I think.

[Kane Knight]

Yeah, I pay 40$ a month for cable, and basically the only thing I watch IS RAW and Smackdown
That's pretty bad. :D

[Corkscrewed]

No way. They already charge for PPVs.

[Goldbird]

I would give it a hell no. PPVs are expensive enough.

[road doggy dogg]

I can see people paying for it if they put on PPV-calibre matches every week (assuming that you won't be paying for PPVs on top of the weekly fee)

Maybe if they scrapped the whole monthly PPV thing (keeping WM, Royal Rumble, and the other biggies), then I could see it sort of working. But paying $70+ a month for wrestling would seem totally out of the picture for me. Even though I get all wrestling free via satellite anyways, so my opinion is kinda irrelevent

[Hired Hitman]

NO.

[The Mackem]

I'd probally just do what I'm doing now for NWA: TNA. Which is just buying the certain shows that peak my interest.
For Example:

The Return of Sting, The Return of Terry Funk, Raven versus Vampiro

You have my sympathy for your extremely high PPV bill.

[Sephiroth]

I think i would only pay for Raw.

[MVP]

When I read this thread I thought it meant pay to GO to a RAW or Smackdown show, so I said Yes, but now that you mean paying to watch it on TV I say no.

[Vega]

Oh shit, I answered yes because I thought the question was asking if we would pay to go to a LIVE EVENT.

I wouldn't pay to see WWE regular shows unless the monthly PPV was included in the deal somehow and I was rich.

[SuperSlim]

if I had to pay to see either or I would just wait til the results come here and read those and say the shows sucked rather than watch them and say the same thing