# AEW Double or Nothing buyrate



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

From the observer the buyrate is of 98.000 buys at the moment. Biggest non-wwe ppv since wcw blabla ( we all know the song guys) , it's an historical feat.
Double or nothing is therefore considered a huge success


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

TNA's highest buy rate was 55,000 wasn't it?

For a company that's existed for just under 5 months and not had a single television show to nearly DOUBLE that in their first ever event is pretty incredible and yes it's a huge success. Great news for them.

I think ECW's best buy rate was about 99,000 too and that was during a much hotter period.

Also worth noting that the last WWE PPV before the Network did 160,000.


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

Oh yeah I might have forget ecw too, I'll check their numbers. With this price , and the fact that they built the ppv on YouTube, beating UFC's last show is a damn feat. 
Congrats to them, they can only get better and more refined


----------



## Freelancer (Aug 24, 2010)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Those numbers are pretty impressive considering their weekly show isn't even on yet. Lets keep it going.


----------



## looper007 (Dec 20, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Great stuff, especially as they have no TV show yet.


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

I think looking at history, it's the best non-WWE buy rate since WCW Bash at the Beach 2000.

And Double or Nothing had double the attendance.


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

And the most impressive is that Tony Khan absolutely predicted that to happen after the show in the interviews. He said that would be the biggest one since wcw. 
You know the more I listen to this man and it seems like he studied the market for so long before investing...


Its almost like he knows exactly where they are heading...that's intriguing


----------



## RBrooks (Oct 18, 2013)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

If that's true, than it's fucking impressive. 

They have almost no build, no TV show, almost no real stars (Moxley wasn't advertised, Cody is not a household name), and they did that well? Fuck, I'm on board. I wish them the fucking best.


----------



## Cas Ras (Sep 8, 2017)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Here's the international distribution according to the Observer


> About two-thirds came from the U.S., with the U.K., which aired the pregame show on ITV 4, being the strong second followed by Australia, Germany and Canada.


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Can me please just wait until we get the official numbers. I don't believe of word of Big Dave!


----------



## Donnie (Apr 8, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

"AEW is a t-shirt company who'll never hold a show" 

Yeah, about that :lmao 

They got 98K buys by building the entire thing through YouTube and Twitter. Just imagine what they can do with TV :sodone


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



Cas Ras said:


> Here's the international distribution according to the Observer


 my god! it's astronomical! :lol 2/3? when the ppv was fucking 50/60 in the US? :lol well here goes the "it's too expensive" parade I guess lol 



krtgolfing said:


> Can me please just wait until we get the official numbers. I don't believe of word of Big Dave!


I doubt they publish the numbers, and Dave was most time right about those kind of things....and I see no reason why they would be false. also others sites reported earlier something that indicates it would be those numbers.


----------



## The3 (Aug 20, 2018)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

The biggest non-WWE or WCW professional wrestling pay-per-view in history. but they better lower the price of pay per views


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



The3 said:


> The biggest non-WWE or WCW professional wrestling pay-per-view in history. but they better lower the price of pay per views


To be fair, I don't think there's a problem with having the BIG PPVs at the same price. They've just proven that people will pay for a good show. Hopefully they go with 4 PPVs a year, one every 3 or so months. $50 for US customers doesn't seem so big then. That's on average like paying $17 a month for a PPV. 

The smaller B level PPVs like Fyter Fest and Fight for the Fallen should absolutely be cheaper. No doubt about it. They are nothing events with barely any storyline continuation (Obviously as there's no TV) with low attendances.

When you compare the event to those of the late 90s etc when it was HARDER to illegally stream, it puts into perspective how impressive the number is.


----------



## RiverFenix (Dec 10, 2011)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

That 200K initial rumor was a leak by somebody anti-AEW to set expectations way too high so the real number would lose any real hype.


----------



## ReekOfAwesomenesss (Apr 6, 2012)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Is it the official number though? I remember Dave saying it made better than the last UFC PPV, which had 100k.


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



ReekOfAwesomenesss said:


> Is it the official number though? I remember Dave saying it made better than the last UFC PPV, which had 100k.


yes I think it is the official number , or maybe it's a bit higher


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



DetroitRiverPhx said:


> That 200K initial rumor was a leak by somebody anti-AEW to set expectations way too high so the real number would lose any real hype.


The 200k rumour was started by someone who misunderstood what Meltzer said.

He said something about 200,000 searches on Google or Google trends or whatever kids do these days.


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

ECWs most bought PPV ever (before WWE owned them) did like 99k buys. So for AEW to almost match that with no TV and almost no traditional advertising is impressive.


----------



## Singapore Kane (Jan 27, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



Donnie said:


> *"AEW is a t-shirt company who'll never hold a show" *
> 
> Yeah, about that :lmao
> 
> They got 98K buys by building the entire thing through YouTube and Twitter. Just imagine what they can do with TV :sodone


I could understand this cynicism coming from people who were burned 5 years ago when Jeff Jarrett promised GFW was going to save wrestling only to reveal it was a vehicle for a gold bullion pyramid scheme. 

I myself was slightly tentative in the lead up to DON since I fell hard for the GFW marketing push and got hyped as hell in 2014.


----------



## reyfan (May 23, 2011)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Congrats to AEW, like other's have mentioned about TNA, I think this time around people were ready for an alternative, TNA started during the RA era when WWE was still quite strong talent and content wise.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



patpat said:


> And the most impressive is that Tony Khan absolutely predicted that to happen after the show in the interviews. He said that would be the biggest one since wcw.
> You know the more I listen to this man and it seems like he studied the market for so long before investing...
> 
> 
> Its almost like he knows exactly where they are heading...that's intriguing


Well, he said he pitched to iTV way before even meeting the Elite.

This has been in his head for some time


----------



## Taroostyles (Apr 1, 2007)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Almost 100k buys with no TV promotion? Between that and the 12k tickets sold this is truly an amazing feat.


----------



## NascarStan (Mar 26, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

For a company that is brand new thst has no TV deal whatsoever to do nearly 100k and do the best non wwe buyrate since Bash at The Beach 2000, equal ECW's largest buyrate, to a higher buyrate than any TNA PPV, do a better buyrate than December to Dismember 2006 is a amazing feat.

With the momentum AEW has and with Moxley vs Omega and Jericho/Page basically confirmed for All Out they can honestly near 150k buys imo


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



DetroitRiverPhx said:


> That 200K initial rumor was a leak by somebody anti-AEW to set expectations way too high so the real number would lose any real hype.


It wasn't a rumor, someone just didn't understand what Meltzer said.

98K with zero build on a weekly show is impressive. Prior to the event I thought something like 50K-75K would have been a good number, but this is even more impressive.

They should have no problem getting between 150K-200K now that they've made such big waves, delivered a great show, and once they can properly build these PPV cards on TNT.

Also, keep in mind that replay buys will likely push it near or over 100K.



ReekOfAwesomenesss said:


> Is it the official number though? I remember Dave saying it made better than the last UFC PPV, which had 100k.


The last UFC PPV was Rose Namajunas vs Jessica Andrade, which did 70K.


----------



## McNugget (Aug 27, 2007)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

This is huge for them on a number of levels. Aside from the obvious - there's now proof that they can market and sell a $50 show with no TV. I'd expect sponsorship and partnership deals to start rolling in after this. Companies are going to want to get in on this while they still can.


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

It's not out of the realms of possibility that they can do even better once they've got TV - there were still people asking on the day of the event how to order etc. And I imagine this is because there wasn't any TV build for it all.

Does anyone know what UFC was doing before TV? And what they have been doing since TV?

All Out could quite easily match this or in fact do even better. Keep up that hype. Feed out more rumours as to who might show up and as to what might happen and you never know. They're like a train right now and theyre only getting quicker.


----------



## Prosper (Mar 25, 2015)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Wow that is really good. And that's at the $50 rate WITHOUT a TV show. Looks like wrestling fans desperately DO want an alternative.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



MJF said:


> It's not out of the realms of possibility that they can do even better once they've got TV - there were still people asking on the day of the event how to order etc. And I imagine this is because there wasn't any TV build for it all.
> 
> Does anyone know what UFC was doing before TV? 50k? And what they have been doing since TV?
> 
> All Out could quite easily match this or in fact do even better. Keep up that hype. Feed out more rumours as to who might show up and as to what might happen and you never know. They're like a train right now and theyre only getting quicker.


It's the best selling PPV without TV promotion since Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock at UFC 40 and Chuck Liddell vs. Tito Ortiz at UFC 47. These fights did 150K and 105K, respectively. That DON did nearly as much as Chuck Liddell vs. Tito Ortiz, in 2019 with illegal streamers running rampant, is pretty great.

They are well positioned to do 150K-200K once they can start promoting these cards on TV.

Fantastic start for them.


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

Yep thats why i waste so much money going to Vegas to see it live. For me personally i know when i see something big about to happen. I needed to be part of this history. 


The amount right this company got with 1 event that tna could mot do in 15 years and i was a tna fan


They woll only contiue ti slowly grow!


----------



## JonLeduc (May 5, 2016)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

If this is true, i am very happy.

What great way to start a new Wrestling company.

Now this is competition.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

So, if this is all buys, USA and international- average it out to 25 bucks a pop

That is a cool 2.5m turnover.

If you told them that a year ago they would’ve taken it for sure.


----------



## EMGESP (Apr 3, 2016)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*

Was thinking about this and people didn't really comment on it, but I love the fact that the crowd was so respectful during that whole show and weren't trying to get themselves over. It really makes a huge difference when you can tell that the audience are totally into the matches.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



LifeInCattleClass said:


> So, if this is all buys, USA and international- average it out to 25 bucks a pop
> 
> That is a cool 2.5m turnover.
> 
> If you told them that a year ago they would’ve taken it for sure.


Actually, 2/3 of the buys came from the US, where the price was $50. Canada, where the price was $50 as well, and the UK, were the other major markets.

So let's say about 70K total buys came from US & Canada, which would come out to $3.5 million, and let's say the rest paid $15 for 28K, which would come out to almost $420K. That's a total of around $3.9 million.

They sold out the place as well, so they probably did fairly well at the gate, too.

Very successful event.


----------



## Cthulhu R'lyeh (Mar 15, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

What happened to the 200k buys people were talking about? DoN was officially a flop.


----------



## Fearless Viper (Apr 6, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Is this just an initial number or there's more to come? Either way it's pretty impressive especially how deal ppv buys for wrestling nowadays.


----------



## lesenfanteribles (Nov 23, 2004)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

It's impressive but I feel like we're just just looking at one source. I hope there's like a few other sources with those stats too. Then again, they sold out in like 4 minutes? That's gotta be something good. Either way, it's a great start for them.


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

They also did a better buy rate than EVERY single WCW PPV from January 1st 2000 to March 26th 2001 when it closed down bar one. 

When wrestling was at it's hottest.

Considering how easy it is to stream illegally nowadays, it speaks volumes.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



Fearless Viper said:


> Is this just an initial number or there's more to come? Either way it's pretty impressive especially how deal ppv buys for wrestling nowadays.


There's more to come via replay buys, which will push the number to over 100K, most likely, especially with all of the rave reviews.


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

LifeInCattleClass said:


> So, if this is all buys, USA and international- average it out to 25 bucks a pop
> 
> That is a cool 2.5m turnover.
> 
> If you told them that a year ago they would’ve taken it for sure.


 2/3 of the buys from the us , so around 60k which is even crazier :lol because it was actually 50$ :lol


----------



## VitoCorleoneX (Jun 27, 2016)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Wasnt it around 200.000 ?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G955F mit Tapatalk


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



MJF said:


> They also did a better buy rate than EVERY single WCW PPV from January 1st 2000 to March 26th 2001 when it closed down bar one.
> 
> When wrestling was at it's hottest.
> 
> Considering how easy it is to stream illegally nowadays, it speaks volumes.


To put it in perspective, WWE would be between 75K-100K for every non-WM or Rumble PPV these days. They had trouble drawing 150K buys for most of their PPVs 6 years ago when there was way more interest in the product and could still draw about 4 million viewers for RAW each week. These days, with illegal streaming being an even bigger factor, as well as the massive decline in interest in the product, they'd be about on par with what DON just drew. Except AEW did it without a weekly TV build.


----------



## validreasoning (Jul 4, 2012)

AEWMoxley said:


> LifeInCattleClass said:
> 
> 
> > So, if this is all buys, USA and international- average it out to 25 bucks a pop
> ...


Split is 50/50 with ppv providers. Could be higher like 40/60 with a newer company but WWE and UFC was 50/50 split

When WWE was running ppv average ppv buy they received combining domestic and international during non mania quarters was about $20-21


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



validreasoning said:


> Split is 50/50 with ppv providers. Could be higher like 40/60 with a newer company but WWE and UFC was 50/50 split
> 
> When WWE was running ppv average pov buy they received combining domestic and international during non mania quarters was about $20-21


True, I was just giving a more accurate figure for the total amount generated. 50% of nearly $4 million is still much better than 50% of 2.5 million, as the other poster was referring to the money generated before the split.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Whoa, whoa, whoa — can we be a little honest about wrestling in 2000? The WWF was hot, but WCW was not. Judgment Day in May 2000 did 420,000 buys. That was low for the year. I want AEW to succeed as much as the next guy, but come on — a little honesty.

98k is not a horrible number. It’s especially good when you compare it to TNA and ROH in a non-streaming world. There is streaming, which I do wonder is covered by these buys. Is this just traditional PPV, or is this inclusive of B/R Live? They amalgamate ratings. 

Bellator used to hover around 100k, and this was not considered successful for PPV. This is good for niche wrestling, especially if it doesn’t factor in buys from OTT services, and considering they don’t have TV. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is how many people sampled it. That’s no guarantee people will be back. It’s no guarantee they won’t be either. But the idea that AEW is just going to burst onto PPV with solely its grassroots promotion is looking tenuous right now.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

100k is still insane I was expecting like 30-40k. Hopefully this doesn't make them think it's a fan friendly price though. Doubt i'd have bought it if I wasn't birthday splurging


----------



## Y.2.J (Feb 3, 2015)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

98K PPV buys...and it will likely climb over the 100K buys with some late buys.

Bravo AEW. No TV yet, no nothing. 50$ a pop too. Sold out MGM.
Does this include B/R live views? Because they must've got a chunk of change from that too right?

What a success.


----------



## LifeInCattleClass (Dec 21, 2010)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



AEWMoxley said:


> Actually, 2/3 of the buys came from the US, where the price was $50. Canada, where the price was $50 as well, and the UK, were the other major markets.
> 
> So let's say about 70K total buys came from US & Canada, which would come out to $3.5 million, and let's say the rest paid $15 for 28K, which would come out to almost $420K. That's a total of around $3.9 million.
> 
> ...


and then there's the merch money


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

RapShepard said:


> 100k is still insane I was expecting like 30-40k. Hopefully this doesn't make them think it's a fan friendly price though. Doubt i'd have bought it if I wasn't birthday splurging


 they know it's not, I think cody even addressed it and said that's why there will be few ppv and they will try everything to make them worth the price


----------



## zrc (Nov 14, 2011)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Good news. It was a great show.


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

Ps : other reports are saying it's over 100k buys as of now. ( fighful.com )


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Fantastic buyrate. I have no idea where people got the 200K number earlier in the week, but I knew that was never gonna be the case. 

This is a very good number, especially for a brand new company with no history at this moment. As long as they continue to book well and book the complete opposite of current day Vince, the buyrate should only go up and up. Especially if they lower the price, the number should also go up. Great number that they should all be proud of on their very first shot. And lets not forget this show also took place on a national holiday weekend Saturday night in the US. Would've been even higher if it wasn't on a holiday weekend. And on that Saturday night here in the northeast, it was a beautiful weather night. The first nice weather we've had on a weekend in awhile as the weather here in the northeast had been dogshit up until this past weekend, so people more than usual were probably itching to go out. So, this is a great number.


----------



## Claro De Luna (Sep 11, 2017)

AEWMoxley said:


> Actually, 2/3 of the buys came from the US, where the price was $50. Canada, where the price was $50 as well, and the UK, were the other major markets.
> 
> So let's say about 70K total buys came from US & Canada, which would come out to $3.5 million, and let's say the rest paid $15 for 28K, which would come out to almost $420K. That's a total of around $3.9 million.
> 
> ...


£15 is not the same as $15, it works out to just shy of $19.

You are forgetting about ticket and merch sales.


----------



## chronoxiong (Apr 1, 2005)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Impressive number indeed. With no TV and only promoted through social media. Is that the future? Or will their TNT programming push the envelope even further? AEW has got my attention now and I hope they succeed so the WWE will finally change their ways.


----------



## SPCDRI (Mar 15, 2010)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Gross 4 million, take 70 percent off for the cut and all the expensives of putting it on, that's still pretty good money, a million dollars, bang, you just paid one of your top talents for the whole year off that. Plus whatever you sold on the tickets and the merch, this is a Pakistani t shirt company, after all.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



patpat said:


> Ps : other reports are saying it's over 100k buys as of now. ( fighful.com )


Due to the replay buys, most likely. Given the overwhelmingly positive reviews and the massive amount attention the event, and the company as a whole, received in the following days, I'm assuming they got quite a few replays buys.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



Claro De Luna said:


> £15 is not the same as $15, it works out to just shy of $19.
> 
> You are forgetting about ticket and merch sales.


I mentioned the gate, which is ticket sales. They likely did a very good number on that front.

Good point about the currency conversion. They grossed over $4 million just from the PPV buys, before the split. Of course, the gate did very well, and then you add merch and on top of that, and it was a successful event.


----------



## Punk_316 (Sep 9, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



MJF said:


> TNA's highest buy rate was 55,000 wasn't it?
> 
> For a company that's existed for just under 5 months and not had a single television show to nearly DOUBLE that in their first ever event is pretty incredible and yes it's a huge success. Great news for them.
> 
> ...


It's a testament to how hungry fans are for a viable alternative to WWE.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



DetroitRiverPhx said:


> That 200K initial rumor was a leak by somebody anti-AEW to set expectations way too high so the real number would lose any real hype.


Nah, people just assumed that 200,000 Google searches meant 200,000 buys, which is ridiculous. 



Punk_316 said:


> It's a testament to how hungry fans are for a viable alternative to WWE.


Absolutely. I hope they manage to win over hearts and minds. 



Cthulhu R'lyeh said:


> What happened to the 200k buys people were talking about? DoN was officially a flop.


Nowhere near a flop. Sounds very profitable.

A thing to keep in mind is that 98k, 100k, or whatever it ends up being, seems to be a worldwide number. Comparing these against domestic numbers is a bit insincere. If two thirds came from the US, then that's 65-70k buys. That's _good_ within a certain context. It's more than TNA ever did. It's not more than ECW ever did though. And while they've beat out WCW's domestic buys during its dying days, I'm not sure how that stacks up against international buys. And this also seems to factor in all avenues for buying the event, for a range of different prices all over the world. It was $20 via FITE in Australia. If Meltzer is factoring those into the 98k, then we're not talking a strict traditional PPV buyrate. It didn't air on traditional PPV in Australia. 

From a holistic, all-inclusive point of view -- you're looking at 98k worldwide customers. There's an argument that is really good. There's also an argument that it might be a bit underwhelming if you frame it within a different context. 65,000 US buys between B/R Live and PPV might not be the thunderstorm some people were hoping for. It will be more useful when we've got more AEW data to compare it to, and determine whether the product can retain customers and create new ones.


----------



## Jedah (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

A few days ago I said if it was even half the number floating around, it would be an incredible buyrate. Half is exactly what it was. :lol Good for them. Here's hoping they keep it up.

With how fucking horrible WWE is right now, there are a lot of fans seeking alternatives, and a lot of recently lapsed fans.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

That is a pretty great buyrate in this day and age for wrestling. It nearly doubled the reported All In buyrates with NO TV advertising or marketing, word of mouth via social media, and Being the Elite. It even beat the last UFC PPV cumulatively as well, it seems. Very good job.

The hurdle now will be to build off of this. Now you have to ask yourself how to attract outside of those nearly 100k buyrates and translate that to your impending TNT TV show in the fall. I'm skeptical of that, especially being that the audience pie is really about 3 million viewers, a far cry from a decade-plus ago. It's not impossible but it will prove very difficult.


----------



## Soul Rex (Nov 26, 2017)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

:y2j Drew all those fucking buys by himself. DA GOAT.

Pretty solid number, but where is the motherfucker who said it was 200k buys? Hate when people report bullshit.


----------



## Mox Girl (Sep 29, 2014)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

Good for them  I'll be adding to their PPV buys next time, I illegally streamed it this time, but with Mox having a match next time, I'll be shelling out most likely (Y)


----------



## Sin City Saint (Feb 4, 2006)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

It’s an impressive number for their very first show. It’s an elite number.

Also, it seems like it hasn’t been talked about as much - but for their very first show - their attendance was higher than any TNA, ROH or ECW show ever. That’s impressive too.


----------



## Paladine (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*

I was one of those who initially scoffed at the 50 dollar price. However I had no intention of finding a stream to watch it either. On the day of the show I watched a few youtube videos they put out to hype the show and it got me excited. Figured what the hell and bought the ppv. I wasn't disappointed...

I think fans who really want to see this content should pay for it. TNA never got good buyrates because people streamed the hell out of it and it hurt them long term with their finances. I want AEW to succeed. They helped restore my love of wrestling.


----------



## RubberbandGoat (Aug 9, 2016)

Ha ha it’s easy to bring back lapsed fans. They left because the shows got too kid friendly. AE had nothing but blood and swearing. That’s what AEW has in spades. Just keep marketing it through Social Media like they have been and just wait until October once their show starts up and they’ll be good. You underestimate how simple it will be to beat WWE. That Saudi money is all that’s keeping them profitable. AEW’s ratings will outdo WWE’s because WWE’s are already low to begin with. WWE sponsors are controlling the product. If AEW sponsors start rolling in and they get Jim Beam or Jack Daniels they don’t need to change. WWE can’t change due to being PG so they can never change their product. AEW already has the advantage


----------



## Derek30 (Jan 3, 2012)

Great news and it looks like there is some room to grow in Canada. I imagine there were quite a few buys in Winnipeg, considering both Jericho and Omega grew up there. Hopefully the AEW TV deal includes a good network in Canada as there are big fans up here


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

Some more news regarding Double or Nothing. As I stated, once replays are factored in, the total buys will end up breaking 100K, which would beat ECW's best PPV, and end up as the biggest non-WWE wrestling PPV in history.

The other interesting part is that there was more buzz for DON online, not only during the event, but after it. It beat both UFC 237 and Money in the Bank in searches on event day, and absolutely shattered both UFC 237 and Money in the Bank in second day interest. So it looks like not only will they be able to retain these fans going forward, but it's very likely that they will be able to increase upon the 100K+ buys for All Out, based on all of the positive reviews and buzz the event generated after its conclusion. 



> The Observer noted that around 2/3 of the Double Or Nothing buys came from the United States. The UK came in at a strong second, followed by Australia, Germany and Canada. With replay buys, Double Or Nothing should top ECW's best pay-per-view, which drew 99,000 buys, and become the biggest pay-per-view in pro wrestling history that was not produced by WWE or WCW. The Observer noted that Impact Wrestling/TNA only did half the buys that Double Or Nothing did in its 16 years, and they only did that a few times, and never came close to beating the number.
> 
> Regarding online interest in Double Or Nothing, AEW was the second most-searched item on Google Trends for Saturday night, topping 220,000 searches, trailing only the NBA's Toronto Raptors. All In, New Japan Tokyo Dome shows and the ROH/NJPW Madison Square Garden show never cracked the top 20 trends list. WWE NXT as only broke the top 20 once, when it hit 50,000 for the recent NXT "Takeover: New York" event. The AEW interest on Saturday night beat the last UFC show by 12% and WWE Money In the Bank by 35%. When it came to second-day interest, Double Or Nothing more than quadrupled Money In the Bank and was more than six times greater than UFC 237.


https://www.wrestlinginc.com/news/2...y-ppv-buys-aew-double-or-nothing-drew-654676/


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

The skewering of these stats is getting mighty frustrating:

How many viewers did MITB get on the Network? You’re comparing traditional PPV buys of a company that charges $9.99 through their OTT service for the same show with the worldwide buys of a company with no such avenue. If there were no Network, this would be impressive. But there is, so this point is fluff. 

Secondly, TNA didn’t exist in a world with OTT PPV delivery. Their PPVs that reached 65,000 buys or whatever, wouldn’t they have done so largely with domestic and traditional metrics? How many domestic PPV buys did AEW get? Oh, about 65,000? 

This is also completely from the AEW perspective. Sure, they get coin from all these deals. But it would be interesting to hear how the separate stakeholders feel, since this is clearly a conflation of traditional and OTT buys. How do the PPV providers feel about splitting 65,000 people between them and B/R Live, for example. 

The number isn’t bad or anything. But let’s not pretend that the world ECW was plugged into was the same as the one where people in Australia can order an AEW PPV off the internet about as easily as they can order a pizza. That wasn’t there for ECW, or even TNA. Their 100,000 and 65,000 shows, or whatever, they’re being “shattered” by a PPV with a worldwide digital audience.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

People actually still Meltzer on the number he threw out there....Him saying 98K, means that at most, it drew half that, probably less
Not to take anything away, getting close to 50K is still impressive


----------



## Matthew Castillo (Jun 9, 2018)

The Wood said:


> Secondly, TNA didn’t exist in a world with OTT PPV delivery. Their PPVs that reached 65,000 buys or whatever, wouldn’t they have done so largely with domestic and traditional metrics? How many domestic PPV buys did AEW get? Oh, about 65,000?
> 
> This is also completely from the AEW perspective. Sure, they get coin from all these deals. But it would be interesting to hear how the separate stakeholders feel, since this is clearly a conflation of traditional and OTT buys. How do the PPV providers feel about splitting 65,000 people between them and B/R Live, for example.


TNA never broke 60k for any PPV, and they had a weekly television show to promote their shows.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

The Wood said:


> The skewering of these stats is getting mighty frustrating:
> 
> How many viewers did MITB get on the Network? You’re comparing traditional PPV buys of a company that charges $9.99 through their OTT service for the same show with the worldwide buys of a company with no such avenue. If there were no Network, this would be impressive. But there is, so this point is fluff.
> 
> ...


The absolute lack of reading comprehension is what's frustrating, squirt.

No one is comparing buys between DON and MITB. That would be impossible to do, however, based on the interest that was quantified for each show, DON would have outsold MITB if WWE was still in the PPV business. The comparison in that article was done on the basis of online interest. DON obliterated MITB in same-day, and second-day interest. The considerable same-day interest happened to result in a great deal of buys, and the second-day interest is what will push those buys to over 100K, as well as create a larger audience for future events. 

Pointing to the lack of worldwide distribution of TNA and ECW doesn't help you here. The interest AEW has generated, both in North America and abroad is part of what makes this so impressive. The distribution aspect in particular, with the different North American and foreign PPV partners, is something that deserves praise, because other promotions, other than WWE, haven't been able to achieve as much as AEW has after one event.

All of this was done without a weekly build on TV.


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

Updated PPV number well above 98k buys.

Just confirmed by Meltzer on WOR.


----------



## patpat (Feb 17, 2019)

MJF said:


> Updated PPV number well above 98k buys.
> 
> Just confirmed by Meltzer on WOR.


 yeah I heard that, did they reach 120k? This is unreal


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

patpat said:


> yeah I heard that, did they reach 120k? This is unreal


Not sure the final number has been entirely confirmed but that would be incredible.

- No TV deal.
- Promoted through YouTube
- Moxley wasn't even advertised

If it was to reach 120k, it'd be the highest buy rate from any non-WWE event since WCW Starrcade in 1999.


----------



## oleanderson89 (Feb 13, 2015)

Huge achievement. Say what you want about the Young Bucks but those guys have insane passion for this. Running a wrestling promotion is not an easy job.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania (Oct 16, 2012)

98K would've been a great number considering the circumstances. But well above that is absolutely fantastic.


----------



## jeffatron (Nov 21, 2016)

*Re: AEW Double or Nothing buyrates*



Mox Girl said:


> Good for them  I'll be adding to their PPV buys next time, I illegally streamed it this time, but with Mox having a match next time, I'll be shelling out most likely (Y)


you won't be disappointed


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

Wrestling Observer Newsletter said:


> _At this point, Double or Nothing is estimated at somewhere between 98,500 and 113,000 buys worldwide. The best estimate has U.S. PPV buys at around 71,000, with almost an exact 50/50 split between television and B/R Live. That’s notable because nobody does a 50/50 split. The biggest split I’ve heard of for a television PPV and streaming was Conor McGregor vs. Khabib Nurmagomedov, which was an 80/20 split in favor of television. Usually it’s closer to 85/15.
> 
> What’s also notable is that in the U.K., the split was closer to 75/25 in favor of television, but in the U.K. the heavy marketing was on ITV 4 for ITV Box Office and there wasn’t really much of a push for streaming PPV, but still a solid percentage did get it streaming._


From Meltzer today.

They can bullshit all they want, but AEW and Cody want WWE's head on the platter and after it being revealed that RAW got a 1.7 rating this week, they actually may have more of a solid chance than we thought.


----------



## bmtrocks (Dec 17, 2012)

WINNING said:


> From Meltzer today.
> 
> They can bullshit all they want, but AEW and Cody want WWE's head on the platter and after it being revealed that RAW got a 1.7 rating this week, they actually may have more of a solid chance than we thought.


Ratings isn't everything however, WWE still has plenty of Saudi blood money to earn. >

It'll be interesting to see what happens when another viable television program pops up in this era of WWE however. Hopefully AEW won't TNA things (I personally doubt they will).


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT (Sep 21, 2004)

bmtrocks said:


> Ratings isn't everything however, WWE still has plenty of Saudi blood money to earn. >
> 
> It'll be interesting to see what happens when another viable television program pops up in this era of WWE however. Hopefully AEW won't TNA things (I personally doubt they will).


It isn't but to the shareholders and television executives, it definitely is and will determine WWE's leverage come to the next TV rights negotiations Universal and WWE have.


----------



## Zappers (Mar 1, 2013)

Double or Nothing buyrate had a extremely low crossover rate with WWE fans that still buy individual wrestling PPV's the standard way. AEW are gonna have to pull in more than a few hundred WWE fans into buying their PPV's.


----------



## deadcool (May 4, 2006)

Awesome.

I wonder how Triple HGH likes this "pissant" company now.

God, I hope Punk signs with them and quadruples this number.


----------



## Matthew Castillo (Jun 9, 2018)

Zappers said:


> Double or Nothing buyrate had a extremely low crossover rate with WWE fans that still buy individual wrestling PPV's the standard way. AEW are gonna have to pull in more than a few hundred WWE fans into buying their PPV's.


Having a low cross over rate with people that buy WWE PPV's on TV and low crossover rate with people that watch WWE aren't the same thing as basically the only people that would still buy traditional PPVs from WWE are the completely tech illiterate due to how much cheaper it is to get it on the network.


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

Zappers said:


> Double or Nothing buyrate had a extremely low crossover rate with WWE fans that still buy individual wrestling PPV's the standard way. AEW are gonna have to pull in more than a few hundred WWE fans into buying their PPV's.


Why?. The majority of people that bought DoN don't watch WWE. That's a good thing.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Matthew Castillo said:


> TNA never broke 60k for any PPV, and they had a weekly television show to promote their shows.


It's true that TNA did have a TV deal (one they massively squandered, but still). I'm pretty sure at least one of their PPVs got to around 60,000 buys though. 71,000 domestic buys doesn't _smoke_ that, and that was TNA. It's a great starting point, don't get me wrong, but people are acting like this is some sort of epic PPV buyrate. Bellator was under-performing when they were hovering around 100,000 buys. Wrestling has lower expectations on it because it is wrestling. 



AEWMoxley said:


> The absolute lack of reading comprehension is what's frustrating, squirt.
> 
> No one is comparing buys between DON and MITB. That would be impossible to do, however, based on the interest that was quantified for each show, DON would have outsold MITB if WWE was still in the PPV business. The comparison in that article was done on the basis of online interest. DON obliterated MITB in same-day, and second-day interest. The considerable same-day interest happened to result in a great deal of buys, and the second-day interest is what will push those buys to over 100K, as well as create a larger audience for future events.
> 
> ...


Yes, I have literally seen people doing that. I have literally seen people say that DON outdrew MITB. Thanks for admitting this is fucking ridiculous. Now saying that DON definitely would have outsold WWE if they were still in the PPV business is also impossible to measure. It's even harder than saying whether or not MITB or DON got more viewers. You've got to completely change history to determine that. If WWE were still in the PPV business, maybe they would actually be trying to put on shows that are worth $50? Comparisons in online interest are like election polling results. It tells you about what people are willing to tell you about. Just because people researched this new wrestling promotion having its first-ever event doesn't mean you can just lift this to a higher performance in all business metrics. MITB, whether it should be or not, is another in a long line of pedestrian events. And that's a tenuous use of the word "result." It's correlation, not causation. This is like WWE bragging about their social media data. 

Ideally it will create a larger audience for future events. That's not guaranteed however. How many people doing last-minute research and ordered the PPV liked it? It's gotten great reviews from inside the wrestling bubble, but that's not most people. The more pertinent data is going to be those Fight for the Fallen buys. 

I have no clue what you're even talking about in your last paragraph. The point is that ECW and TNA (especially ECW) didn't have worldwide PPVs that were accessible to stream. Streaming is a relatively new concept. Yes, it's a good thing that AEW can do it...obviously. But which company has even had the fucking chance of doing it on any sort of scale before now? There's been WWE and nothing. The world is entirely different now. "Help me?" I've got no clue what you mean by that. I _want_ AEW to succeed. My point is just that 35,000 domestic PPV buys, 35,000 domestic streams and 35,000 international streams, while good, isn't exactly a fucking mind-blowing occurrence. The domestic audience for this wouldn't have been able to fill AT&T Stadium. 

It's a starting point, and I hope it gets better. 



MJF said:


> Not sure the final number has been entirely confirmed but that would be incredible.
> 
> - No TV deal.
> - Promoted through YouTube
> ...


Well, since WCW Starrcade you've only had dying ECW PPVs, TNA and ROH. It _should_ be the highest buy-rate since that show.

A TV deal certainly opens them up a lot more, but I think people need to admit the ability of YouTube to reach people in 2019. TV will allow AEW to reach cold audiences. It should broaden their weekly exposure to at least 1 million people weekly. This is a good thing, but they've had the hot audience waiting for this since January, and arguably longer, since word of a promotion has been out since the later half of last year, and people had All In to whet appetites. Their approach to this was very grass-roots, but it was clever for what it was, and while being subtle, this thing has been hammered into us for quite a while. Partially by WWE's incompetence too. 



WINNING said:


> From Meltzer today.
> 
> They can bullshit all they want, but AEW and Cody want WWE's head on the platter and after it being revealed that RAW got a 1.7 rating this week, they actually may have more of a solid chance than we thought.


I've been saying for quite a while that there is no reason that AEW can't beat WWE in the ratings. WWE's programming is abysmal and doesn't appeal to the people who would _want_ to watch it if it were good. There are lapsed fans, wrestling fans, old-school fans, WCW fans, independent wrestling fans and fed-up WWE fans to try and appeal to. There's no reason that a logical show that doesn't insult your intelligence, and only requires two hours of your life a week can't outperform three hours of secondary mind-numbing filler. 



WINNING said:


> It isn't but to the shareholders and television executives, it definitely is and will determine WWE's leverage come to the next TV rights negotiations Universal and WWE have.


Oh yeah, definitely. And where AEW sits in a few years is going to affect them too. If AEW is doing comparably, or even better than WWE in the ratings and they aren't asking for nearly as much as Vince, why would FOX or NBC Universal loosen the purse strings for him? When that money starts evaporating is when you are going to see Vince FREAK. 



Zappers said:


> Double or Nothing buyrate had a extremely low crossover rate with WWE fans that still buy individual wrestling PPV's the standard way. AEW are gonna have to pull in more than a few hundred WWE fans into buying their PPV's.


Where did you get this information? It's certainly intriguing. I'm actually glad they aren't appealing to WWE fans. Not all wrestling fans are WWE fans, and vice versa. Ideally WWE fans would become more "cultured" in time and drop the dross for the gloss.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

The Wood said:


> Yes, I have literally seen people doing that. I have literally seen people say that DON outdrew MITB. Thanks for admitting this is fucking ridiculous. Now saying that DON definitely would have outsold WWE if they were still in the PPV business is also impossible to measure. It's even harder than saying whether or not MITB or DON got more viewers. You've got to completely change history to determine that. If WWE were still in the PPV business, maybe they would actually be trying to put on shows that are worth $50? Comparisons in online interest are like election polling results. It tells you about what people are willing to tell you about. Just because people researched this new wrestling promotion having its first-ever event doesn't mean you can just lift this to a higher performance in all business metrics. MITB, whether it should be or not, is another in a long line of pedestrian events. And that's a tenuous use of the word "result." It's correlation, not causation. This is like WWE bragging about their social media data.
> 
> Ideally it will create a larger audience for future events. That's not guaranteed however. How many people doing last-minute research and ordered the PPV liked it? It's gotten great reviews from inside the wrestling bubble, but that's not most people. The more pertinent data is going to be those Fight for the Fallen buys.
> 
> ...


Pointing out that DON would have outsold, or at the very least, been on par with MITB is very reasonable. A large portion, maybe even most, of WWE's PPV buys in their final year on traditional PPV were in the 100K to 200K range. This was back when there was far greater interest in their product and they were still drawing around 4 million viewers. They were charging $50 per PPV and so they had incentive to put on the best shows they could. Fast forward 6 years later, and interest in the product is nearly at an all-time low, they are drawing 2-2.5 million for their flagship show, and illegal streamers are much more rampant now than back then. You wouldn't find more than 100K people who would regularly pay $50 for a WWE PPV in 2019. It wouldn't happen. Literally anyone with a brain can see this.

You didn't need streaming a decade or two ago to draw big international or domestic numbers. WWE, at its peak in the Attitude Era, was drawing massive numbers both here and abroad on traditional PPV. So was WCW. Again, the fact that AEW has the distribution to reach a much wider audience than other alternatives doesn't help your argument here. It's actually part of the reason why they have a ton of potential to build and maintain a large audience, and why they will be successful going forward. This is nothing but a huge positive for the company.

Even more impressive is that they did all of this without a single week of TV build. It's nothing short of a mind-blowing occurrence that no one would have predicted or even hoped for.


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

V-Trigger said:


> Why?. The majority of people that bought DoN don't watch WWE. That's a good thing.


Where the hell did you find that video gif of the belt ? Ive not seen a shot like that of the belt anywhere. It really is now one of the top 3 best looking wrestling belts. Its frustrating waiting for professional photos lol. The maker of the belt has not uploaded them eithera


LOL sorry to bug you about that,I found it anyways. Spunk fest


----------



## V-Trigger (Jul 6, 2016)

shandcraig said:


> Where the hell did you find that video gif of the belt ? Ive not seen a shot like that of the belt anywhere. It really is now one of the top 3 best looking wrestling belts. Its frustrating waiting for professional photos lol. The maker of the belt has not uploaded them eithera
> 
> 
> LOL sorry to bug you about that,I found it anyways. Spunk fest


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

AEWMoxley said:


> The Wood said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have literally seen people doing that. I have literally seen people say that DON outdrew MITB. Thanks for admitting this is fucking ridiculous. Now saying that DON definitely would have outsold WWE if they were still in the PPV business is also impossible to measure. It's even harder than saying whether or not MITB or DON got more viewers. You've got to completely change history to determine that. If WWE were still in the PPV business, maybe they would actually be trying to put on shows that are worth $50? Comparisons in online interest are like election polling results. It tells you about what people are willing to tell you about. Just because people researched this new wrestling promotion having its first-ever event doesn't mean you can just lift this to a higher performance in all business metrics. MITB, whether it should be or not, is another in a long line of pedestrian events. And that's a tenuous use of the word "result." It's correlation, not causation. This is like WWE bragging about their social media data.
> ...


It doesn’t go to reason that WWE PPV metrics would have dropped that much. The people buying PPV could be the people who are still watching. If you applied this principle in reverse, you are suggesting that if AEW had a rating of 4.5 million viewers then it would literally be doing something like 450,000 buys. That’s ridiculous and is _a lot_ of wishful thinking.

I think they would find 100k people who would pay for a WWE PPV in 2019, since their domestic number is still at 16k, which is almost a third of DON with people choosing to do that instead of simply paying $9.99 or even getting the WWE Network for free. There are literally over 15k in the United States who will still pay $50 for WWE PPVs when they actually cost 20% of that price. That number goes up massively if you drop the Network or charge for them through it. I guarantee it does better than DON. Converting just 3% of your television audience beats AEW. By your own words, you are comparing a one-off show with “regularly.” That’s not a fair comparison. Anyone with a brain can see that.

I’ve got no clue what point you are trying to make with your second paragraph. That wrestling used to do better? Um, yeah, exactly. ECW PPVs were not shown in Australia. Not sure about WCW PPVs. Either way, those numbers people are comparing AEW’s 113k or whatever to do not factor that in. They don’t factor in the diversity of international platforms becoming somewhat gentrified. AEW would not have those international deals in, say, 1999 that they do now. It wouldn’t be feasible. Therefore we’d be comparing a 75k number with WCW, ECW and TNA. 

The point isn’t that having a global audience is bad, FFS. It’s that having a readily accessible global audience is _new_. People in the US have a problem understanding this, but there are lots of people in the world outside of that country. To open yourself up to other markets that other promotions did not have access to even ten years ago is pretty lopsided as a comparison. 

I’m happy for traditional PPV and OTT PPV to be amalgamated domestically, but it’s not reflective of domestic interest to amalgamate Australian and European buys into that. You’re dealing with 75k domestic buys. That’s good for a baby promotion, but of course it is the biggest thing to happen in wrestling since something remotely big happened in wrestling. 

Keep in mind: Starrcade ‘99’s buy-rate was _abysmal_. 

When it comes to your last paragraph, I’m just going to reiterate what I said: It’s not like this thing has had no promotion. This was the sequel to All In. This was a show announced back in January, which has been brewing in people’s minds since January, built off the ideas of something *else* in wrestling that have been floating since 1999. It was hyped via YouTube, which is a platform with a larger scope than any TV channel. 

I’ve been on record as saying that I think AEW getting TV is excellent. It allows them to expose and market themselves to an audience way larger than the wrestling bubble. But let’s not pretend that this show a) wasn’t promoted, b) wasn’t built, c) hasn’t been a pipe-dream for the longest time. The hot audience all knew about this show. Anyone who listens to wrestling podcasts and goes onto a website and types in “wrestling” is likely to have found it. There’s a much larger cold audience out there, and what will be interesting is how they either accept it or don’t.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

As a further point, I don’t think traditional PPV platforms and B/R Live are run by the same people. So while 70k could be considered “good” by AEW and their 30-50% is going to be the same, it would be interesting to know how PPV providers feel about getting <35k buys. Hey, it’s a new property, so maybe they are cool? But their bottom-line doesn’t go up because AEW sold 35k to B/R Live too. Even if one provider got all those 35k buys at a 70% rate, that’s $1.23 million. You can look at that like a lot of money, or like it’s not much money in the grand scheme of television.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

The Wood said:


> It doesn’t go to reason that WWE PPV metrics would have dropped that much. The people buying PPV could be the people who are still watching. If you applied this principle in reverse, you are suggesting that if AEW had a rating of 4.5 million viewers then it would literally be doing something like 450,000 buys. That’s ridiculous and is _a lot_ of wishful thinking.
> 
> I think they would find 100k people who would pay for a WWE PPV in 2019, since their domestic number is still at 16k, which is almost a third of DON with people choosing to do that instead of simply paying $9.99 or even getting the WWE Network for free. There are literally over 15k in the United States who will still pay $50 for WWE PPVs when they actually cost 20% of that price. That number goes up massively if you drop the Network or charge for them through it. I guarantee it does better than DON. Converting just 3% of your television audience beats AEW. By your own words, you are comparing a one-off show with “regularly.” That’s not a fair comparison. Anyone with a brain can see that.
> 
> ...


Of course it stands to reason that a decrease in interest and TV viewership would result in a decline in PPV buys. This has always been the case. When there was a spike in TV ratings from the New Generation to the Attitude Era, it was accompanied by an increase in PPV buys. When there was a drop in viewership from the Attitude Era, it was accompanied by a drop in PPV buys, and that drop continued into 2013, WWE's final year on traditional PPV. 100K people would not pay $50 for the worst wrestling product on the planet. This would not happen. I get that you love the WWE, for some bizarre reason, and that you are defensive of the company, but you're being delusional.

AEW's ownership being able to secure distribution not only in the US, but abroad, is a great thing for the company, and a huge positive. It's why they'll be far more successful than TNA or any other alternative who tried to compete with WWE. 

International markets have always been accessible, kiddo. Even before streaming. That you think accessing foreign markets is some new phenomenon that's attributable to the rise of streaming is reason to completely ignore your posts, lest you brighten up and greatly improve your knowledge of the subject matter. 

Take a step back, regroup, and come back when you're ready to be rational and to use your brain.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

After the absolute insult to wrestling that just occurred today bu the "Bigger" company, whatever shortcomings AEW has or whatever hills they need to climb should seem like a walk in the park to any self-respecting fan. Not to excuse them, but to put them in perspective. We are BLESSED. let us not lose sight of that.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

AEWMoxley said:


> Of course it stands to reason that a decrease in interest and TV viewership would result in a decline in PPV buys. This has always been the case. When there was a spike in TV ratings from the New Generation to the Attitude Era, it was accompanied by an increase in PPV buys. When there was a drop in viewership from the Attitude Era, it was accompanied by a drop in PPV buys, and that drop continued into 2013, WWE's final year on traditional PPV. 100K people would not pay $50 for the worst wrestling product on the planet. This would not happen. I get that you love the WWE, for some bizarre reason, and that you are defensive of the company, but you're being delusional.
> 
> AEW's ownership being able to secure distribution not only in the US, but abroad, is a great thing for the company, and a huge positive. It's why they'll be far more successful than TNA or any other alternative who tried to compete with WWE.
> 
> ...


I didn't say that a decrease in TV viewership wouldn't result in _a_ decline in PPV buys. I said that it wouldn't go to reason that PPV buys would drop _that_ much. 

In 2013, WWE averaged a 2.89 rating for Raw. I'm not sure what that would be in the millions of viewers, exactly, but it was greater than 3.6 and less than 4.2. Let's go high and call it 4.1. Payback that month got 196,000 buys. That means about 4.8% of Raw viewers ordered that PPV in May 2013. I'm not sure the average number of viewers for the WWF in 1998 by the millions, but taking their average 4.35 rating and converting that to millions, which would raise the number more, you still only get a 9% conversation rate to PPV.

So realistically we've never been talking a huge chunk of WWE's audience ordering PPV, on average. But let's take that last stat -- the 4.8%. If you apply that to 2.3 million people, you get 110,400 buys on domestic PPV. That's over 55% more than what AEW did with DoN. Now, would they be converting less than that 4.8% nowadays? I don't know. You don't know. The numbers aren't there. But when you consider that their viewership is down 44% between 2013 and 2019 (yikes), and if you want to make the GIANT assumption that PPV would follow the _exact_ same trend, then you still get 86,240. That's still batting 21% ahead of AEW.

That people would not pay for WWE's PPVs is your opinion. I wish people wouldn't buy them, but it's your *feeling* that people wouldn't spend $50 on WWE in 2019. There's no metric to support that. 2.3 million of the fuckers still watch it. And I don't know where you get this idea that I "love" WWE. I fucking hate them. I guess it helps your bias that you project that onto me though. 

Lol, I can see from the rest of your post that you are beginning to meltdown. I didn't say that international deals were a negative. Why would you even make the point that they are a positive? Of course they are. _I said that._ My point is that it's not a fair and equitable way to measure the overall appeal of a brand when comparing it solely to the domestic appeal of another. It's great that they are accessible in other places, but that is a benefit that is available to them today that wasn't to others. 

Yo, "kiddo," using condescending language doesn't win you an argument. That posturing is transparent to most people "using their brains." I live in an international market. It's one that Meltzer is attributing to AEW's success. I can very confidently tell you that we did not have access to ECW or a lot of TNA PPVs. I can also tell you that we did not have access to traditional AEW PPV, but we were able to access it via streaming. If ECW were around today, the same opportunities would probably be accessible to them, which weren't then. _Of course_ international markets "existed" before streaming. No one is arguing otherwise. You're again misrepresenting a point either for convenience or because you don't understand it. It's not that these markets are entirely new -- it's that they are significantly more accessible than they were back when you needed some prominence to secure a deal. 

It's much easier to scoff at someone and claim they deserve to be ignored than try and rebut the actual points they make, isn't it? I'm fairly sure most will be able to see through this tactic though. 



Beatles123 said:


> After the absolute insult to wrestling that just occurred today bu the "Bigger" company, whatever shortcomings AEW has or whatever hills they need to climb should seem like a walk in the park to any self-respecting fan. Not to excuse them, but to put them in perspective. We are BLESSED. let us not lose sight of that.


Absolutely agree. I mean, I don't even need to see the show to just find it disgusting on premise. I want AEW to succeed really badly. I hope they do better and better. It doesn't mean we need to pretend that they are doing better than they are though. If that brings people comfort...okay? I guess? But let's not label it "rational."


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

The Wood said:


> I didn't say that a decrease in TV viewership wouldn't result in _a_ decline in PPV buys. I said that it wouldn't go to reason that PPV buys would drop _that_ much.
> 
> In 2013, WWE averaged a 2.89 rating for Raw. I'm not sure what that would be in the millions of viewers, exactly, but it was greater than 3.6 and less than 4.2. Let's go high and call it 4.1. Payback that month got 196,000 buys. That means about 4.8% of Raw viewers ordered that PPV in May 2013. I'm not sure the average number of viewers for the WWF in 1998 by the millions, but taking their average 4.35 rating and converting that to millions, which would raise the number more, you still only get a 9% conversation rate to PPV.
> 
> ...


You didn't get access to ECW and TNA because ECW was a poorly run business and TNA was a horrendous product. ECW had trouble getting another national TV deal after they were cancelled on TNN. They had far more pressing issues to worry about than expanding globally. It had nothing to do with the lack of easy access to foreign markets. Even in today's environment, TNA and other non-WWE promotions, with the exception of AEW, aren't getting the domestic and international distribution, and certainly aren't drawing anywhere near what AEW is drawing, and that's despite the fact that AEW doesn't even have the benefit of a weekly TV build. You're making some very imbecilic points.

You're out of your element here. Literally everyone who knows what they're talking about (this clearly does not include you) has been thoroughly impressed by these numbers. Dave Meltzer, who has been covering the industry for decades, and who has analyzed countless PPVs, has lauded the numbers. Everyone he has spoken to has been amazed by the actual number, and by the fact that they were able to achieve it with very little crossover with WWE audience, which means they were able to bring back lapsed fans and to draw in an entirely new audience.

You're more than welcome to continue besmirching yourself, but if you want to be blessed with another reply from me, you're going to have to step your game up.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

AEWMoxley said:


> You're out of your element here. Literally everyone who knows what they're talking about (this clearly does not include you) has been thoroughly impressed by these numbers. Dave Meltzer, who has been covering the industry for decades, and who has analyzed countless PPVs, has lauded the numbers. Everyone he has spoken to has been amazed by the actual number, and by the fact that they were able to achieve it with very little crossover with WWE audience, which means they were able to bring back lapsed fans and to draw in an entirely new audience.
> 
> You're more than welcome to continue besmirching yourself, but if you want to be blessed with another reply from me, you're going to have to step your game up.


What actual proof is there that their was little crossover with the WWE audience and they brought back lapsed fans? That sounds like a made up fact to boost image. Not saying they can't eventually bring back lapsed fans. But it seems highly unlikely the majority of those buys came from folk who weren't already inside the wrestling bubble. It take a lot more than a few last minute commercials to do that.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

RapShepard said:


> What actual proof is there that their was little crossover with the WWE audience and they brought back lapsed fans? That sounds like a made up fact to boost image. Not saying they can't eventually bring back lapsed fans. But it seems highly unlikely the majority of those buys came from folk who weren't already inside the wrestling bubble. It take a lot more than a few last minute commercials to do that.


From Meltzer:



> Based on the new collection of data, the Observer figures that of the 15,700 WWE Money In the Bank pay-per-view buyers, roughly 397 purchased the AEW Double Or Nothing pay-per-view, give or take very few buys in either direction. It was noted that the 397 number may be off by a few in either direction because a small sample was used - just 2.5%. The percentage itself, based on the read numbers, was considered to be shockingly low.
> 
> The Observer noted that people who have seen the pay-per-view data this past week have been amazed. There was a belief that both promotions were drawing from pretty much the same fan base. It was also noted that while there may be a bigger crossover for TV and overall buzz, it's clear that when it comes to actual buys, the WWE audience and the AEW audience have shockingly little crossover. There were actually way more than 397 homes that shared the purchase, because of various factors surrounding the WWE Network, and it would be 8,000 homes at most, and probably significantly less, according to the Observer.
> 
> ...


https://www.wrestlinginc.com/news/2019/06/updated-numbers-for-aew-double-or-nothing-ppv-buys-654930/


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

AEWMoxley said:


> From Meltzer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does he ever go into detail on how they got this specific data. Like I believe him in general on PPV buys as he's always killed it on that with UFC and shit, so he's proven their. But did he ever specify how the data determined that the majority of the PPVs buys came from folk that don't buy WWE PPVs or use the Network? Because right now it's just throwing out a bunch of numbers without saying how they got them. Like I could see there being a way to maybe track what traditional PPV purchases people are making. But how are they determining how many of those DoN buyers had the WWE Network?


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

There's little crossover because AEW's fans are mostly all the people who have fucked off from WWE's shite.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

RapShepard said:


> Does he ever go into detail on how they got this specific data. Like I believe him in general on PPV buys as he's always killed it on that with UFC and shit, so he's proven their. But did he ever specify how the data determined that the majority of the PPVs buys came from folk that don't buy WWE PPVs or use the Network? Because right now it's just throwing out a bunch of numbers without saying how they got them. Like I could see there being a way to maybe track what traditional PPV purchases people are making. But how are they determining how many of those DoN buyers had the WWE Network?


It's a similar statistical method that is used to determine TV ratings and by pollsters during elections. When it comes to TV ratings, it's based on a very minuscule sample size of the entire population, upon which they extrapolate the actual viewership, rating, demo, crossover appeal, etc.

Similar method can be utilized here, to extrapolate from the crossover based on the small sample of those who purchase traditional WWE PPVs, with various inputs like demographics, location, etc., to determine the crossover for everyone who purchased WWE's PPV (including those on the Network) and those who purchased DON.

As with TV ratings, it's an estimate, but it's the the number that the industry will use.


----------



## DesoloutionRow (May 18, 2014)

*Re: Aew double or nothing buyrates*



MJF said:


> TNA's highest buy rate was 55,000 wasn't it?
> 
> For a company that's existed for just under 5 months and not had a single television show to nearly DOUBLE that in their first ever event is pretty incredible and yes it's a huge success. Great news for them.
> 
> ...


Agreed with Michael Jackson Fan.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

AEWMoxley said:


> It's a similar statistical method that is used to determine TV ratings and by pollsters during elections. When it comes to TV ratings, it's based on a very minuscule sample size of the entire population, upon which they extrapolate the actual viewership, rating, demo, crossover appeal, etc.
> 
> Similar method can be utilized here, to extrapolate from the crossover based on the small sample of those who purchase traditional WWE PPVs, with various inputs like demographics, location, etc., to determine the crossover for everyone who purchased WWE's PPV (including those on the Network) and those who purchased DON.
> 
> As with TV ratings, it's an estimate, but it's the the number that the industry will use.


I get TV ratings as I've done the Nielson thing. But yeah idk it just seems real vague how they came to the idea of little crossover. As I'd imagine the majority of folk who bought are diehard current fans that most would have the WWE Network even if begrudgingly. Especially since a lot of the hype was having something to replace WWE with as a mainstream wrestling viewing source. But thanks for explaining the best way you, could.


----------



## Chan Hung (Dec 28, 2011)

MOX said:


> There's little crossover because AEW's fans are mostly all the people who have fucked off from WWE's shite.


Basically this. I think there however is like a U.S. Census a hidden # of a good majority of WWE fans who at least are now aware of AEW and once it hits TNT you will see some crossover.


----------



## ste1592 (Dec 20, 2014)

RapShepard said:


> I get TV ratings as I've done the Nielson thing. But yeah idk it just seems real vague how they came to the idea of little crossover. As I'd imagine the majority of folk who bought are *diehard current fans that most would have the WWE Network even if begrudgingly*. Especially since a lot of the hype was having something to replace WWE with as a mainstream wrestling viewing source. But thanks for explaining the best way you, could.



I would have said the opposite, actually. Not that I wouldn't expect those people you mentioned to watch DoN, but I expected more turnout from people like me, people who don't have the Network and every now and them checks out something that other people say it's interesting.

I wouldn't call myself a longtime lapsed fan, and I think there is a little confusion in the report, as it's possible that they use "lapsed fans" to describe people, like me, who watched WWE until a year ago, for example. It depends on what they meant by lapsed fans, because I highly doubt someone who hasn't been watching WWE since 2009 would now pay to watch DoN.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

ste1592 said:


> I would have said the opposite, actually. Not that I wouldn't expect those people you mentioned to watch DoN, but I expected more turnout from people like me, people who don't have the Network and every now and them checks out something that other people say it's interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call myself a longtime lapsed fan, and I think there is a little confusion in the report, as it's possible that they use "lapsed fans" to describe people, like me, who watched WWE until a year ago, for example. It depends on what they meant by lapsed fans, because I highly doubt someone who hasn't been watching WWE since 2009 would now pay to watch DoN.


Yeah what they define as lapsed fan would probably be helpful. Someone who recently stopped watching but heard about DoN and got excited and bought it makes sense. When I hear lapsed fans my mind goes to like haven't watched in years or decades possibly. Not like "I quit WWE at the Rumble" type.


----------



## ste1592 (Dec 20, 2014)

RapShepard said:


> Yeah what they define as lapsed fan would probably be helpful. Someone who recently stopped watching but heard about DoN and got excited and bought it makes sense. When I hear lapsed fans my mind goes to like haven't watched in years or decades possibly. Not like "I quit WWE at the Rumble" type.


Exactly. The perspective completely changes if "lapsed fans" means "haven't watched in 6 months", since it would mean the crossover is actually true but with this little "trick" you can say there is no crossover.

If they meant "haven't watched in 5 years", then their point absolutely stands.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

ste1592 said:


> because I highly doubt someone who hasn't been watching WWE since 2009 would now pay to watch DoN.


Why?

I checked out of wrestling maybe a few months after Kane first unmasked for life reasons and then only got back into it when a mate told me about some CM Punk guy I should check out (at the end of 2011, hence my sign up date on here).

Lapsed fans could be one year, could be ten years. Lapsed is lapsed.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

ste1592 said:


> Exactly. The perspective completely changes if "lapsed fans" means "haven't watched in 6 months", since it would mean the crossover is actually true but with this little "trick" you can say there is no crossover.
> 
> 
> 
> If they meant "haven't watched in 5 years", then their point absolutely stands.


Yeah it just sounds like something is being left out or a "trick" is there. But either way convincing that many folk to drop $50 can only be a good sign. I wouldn't want to regularly pay $50, but I can't imagine that many folk were disappointed in the show once the big matches ended. So it'll be interesting how their TV does. I can see them hovering around 1.0 easily



MOX said:


> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt things can bring folk back. But it's hard to buy someone lapsed as long as you did were just willing to drop $50 out of curiosity. I'm guessing when you came back for Punk you started off with watching him on TV and not paying for PPVs to see what he was about.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop (Nov 2, 2015)

ste1592 said:


> I would have said the opposite, actually. Not that I wouldn't expect those people you mentioned to watch DoN, but I expected more turnout from people like me, people who don't have the Network and every now and them checks out something that other people say it's interesting.
> 
> I wouldn't call myself a longtime lapsed fan, and I think there is a little confusion in the report, as it's possible that they use "lapsed fans" to describe people, like me, who watched WWE until a year ago, for example. It depends on what they meant by lapsed fans, because I highly doubt someone who hasn't been watching WWE since 2009 would now pay to watch DoN.


I consider myself to be one of those lapsed fans. I used to be big into any kind of wrestling I could find, until WWE became utterly unwatchable, which I put squarely into the last 10-15 years, getting increasingly so each passing year. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a WWE PPV, but I'm sure it's been at least 10 years. I haven't watched WWE weekly shows regularly for at least 5 years, though there have been moments of weakness here and there that I jumped back in out of curiosity (and been duly disappointed). I watch ROH now and then, and I'll hunt down an indy or NJPW match on youtube if I hear about something good, but otherwise there's not much that's both interesting and easily accessible to me, hence lapsed. 

Anyway ... I couldn't wait for DoN, and did indeed pay $60 for it. I'm sure I'm not alone, especially looking at the DoN buy rate estimates and Meltzer's analysis of who's buying what. I think the term 'lapsed fan' covers a pretty wide range of viewers, and I think the common denominator would be those fans that have just been turned off by WWE to the point that they no longer watch wrestling. Until now. I'm willing to bet a coffee that AEW is pulling a lot more like me (and YOU) back into the fold.


----------



## ste1592 (Dec 20, 2014)

MOX said:


> Why?
> 
> I checked out of wrestling maybe a few months after Kane first unmasked for life reasons and then only got back into it when a mate told me about some CM Punk guy I should check out (at the end of 2011, hence my sign up date on here).
> 
> Lapsed fans could be one year, could be ten years. Lapsed is lapsed.





Reggie Dunlop said:


> I consider myself to be one of those lapsed fans. I used to be big into any kind of wrestling I could find, until WWE became utterly unwatchable, which I put squarely into the last 10-15 years, getting increasingly so each passing year. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a WWE PPV, but I'm sure it's been at least 10 years. I haven't watched WWE weekly shows regularly for at least 5 years, though there have been moments of weakness here and there that I jumped back in out of curiosity (and been duly disappointed). I watch ROH now and then, and I'll hunt down an indy or NJPW match on youtube if I hear about something good, but otherwise there's not much that's both interesting and easily accessible to me, hence lapsed.
> 
> Anyway ... I couldn't wait for DoN, and did indeed pay $60 for it. I'm sure I'm not alone, especially looking at the DoN buy rate estimates and Meltzer's analysis of who's buying what. I think the term 'lapsed fan' covers a pretty wide range of viewers, and I think the common denominator would be those fans that have just been turned off by WWE to the point that they no longer watch wrestling. Until now. I'm willing to bet a coffee that AEW is pulling a lot more like me (and YOU) back into the fold.


I might not have explained myself properly. 

Obviously, people of all kinds have watched DoN, myself included. My point, which I would say tends to stay more on the rational side than the "emotional" one, is that if I gave up on WWE 10 years ago I pretty much gave up on wrestling, and I'm not sure hearing some news about a new wrestling company would have brought me back.

I'll be honest, and maybe a bit negative, but if I had been away from wrestling for over 10 years I'm not sure DoN would have brought me back. But then again, Bray Wyatt's debut brought me back completely out of the blue in 2012, so who knows?


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

The Wood said:


> I didn't say that a decrease in TV viewership wouldn't result in _a_ decline in PPV buys. I said that it wouldn't go to reason that PPV buys would drop _that_ much.
> 
> In 2013, WWE averaged a 2.89 rating for Raw. I'm not sure what that would be in the millions of viewers, exactly, but it was greater than 3.6 and less than 4.2. Let's go high and call it 4.1. Payback that month got 196,000 buys. That means about 4.8% of Raw viewers ordered that PPV in May 2013. I'm not sure the average number of viewers for the WWF in 1998 by the millions, but taking their average 4.35 rating and converting that to millions, which would raise the number more, you still only get a 9% conversation rate to PPV.
> 
> ...


No, no. Wood, you don't understand. This was BAD. REALLY bad. :cry I'm talking Jeff Hardy vs sting at Victory road bad! :flair

It really puts into perspective how even if AEW aren't "There" yet, we shouldn't understate that they're VERY MUCH in a good spot ans we are blessed to have them right now.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

AEWMoxley said:


> You didn't get access to ECW and TNA because ECW was a poorly run business and TNA was a horrendous product. ECW had trouble getting another national TV deal after they were cancelled on TNN. They had far more pressing issues to worry about than expanding globally. It had nothing to do with the lack of easy access to foreign markets. Even in today's environment, TNA and other non-WWE promotions, with the exception of AEW, aren't getting the domestic and international distribution, and certainly aren't drawing anywhere near what AEW is drawing, and that's despite the fact that AEW doesn't even have the benefit of a weekly TV build. You're making some very imbecilic points.
> 
> You're out of your element here. Literally everyone who knows what they're talking about (this clearly does not include you) has been thoroughly impressed by these numbers. Dave Meltzer, who has been covering the industry for decades, and who has analyzed countless PPVs, has lauded the numbers. Everyone he has spoken to has been amazed by the actual number, and by the fact that they were able to achieve it with very little crossover with WWE audience, which means they were able to bring back lapsed fans and to draw in an entirely new audience.
> 
> You're more than welcome to continue besmirching yourself, but if you want to be blessed with another reply from me, you're going to have to step your game up.


Those two factors have _nothing_ to do with what we're talking about. Stop shifting goal posts. What does ECW having trouble getting a national TV deal have to do with anything? Or TNA having trouble finding domestic distribution? AEW was being sold on PPV here before they have done anything on TV. You're showing me an orange and trying to tell me it proves the existence of fruits called silvers that are eight feet tall. It _absolutely_ had to do with the access to those markets. How old are you? Back in the early 00's/late 90's there was limited space on TV. If things clashed with another event they couldn't just throw one on the internet. There were no smart phones or tablets to watch content on. You needed a cable box and there needed to be that demand. Otherwise you wouldn't _pay_ for the content to air it and only get, say, 33,000 people over the entire world watching it. Also, setting up live streams used to be far more cost prohibitive. "LIVE" used to be a thing they threw up in the corner of the screen because it was a gimmick, not unlike "In Technicolor" used to be. 

My point is not that TNA is/was great. It's not even a knock on AEW. I've been super-vocally supportive of them and optimistic about their potential deals (I was calling the TNT deal when everyone was still saying it was ridiculous). That's not the point here either. Nor is that other promotions are doing what AEW did. Wtf? Of course you'd say my points are "imbecilic." You don't understand what is being said. The point is, and try to stay on this one: AEW has immediate access to international platforms that are conflating their worldwide buys with domestic buys. It is dishonest to compare their worldwide buys with domestic buys (as is being done) to represent this venture as already bigger and more successful than ventures that did not have access to these platforms and an international audience in a globalized context. 



MOX said:


> There's little crossover because AEW's fans are mostly all the people who have fucked off from WWE's shite.


Agreed. Well, you'd think that people would hopefully leave WWE for AEW over time. When it comes to people still buying WWE PPVs via traditional metrics, I imagine that the only reason they are not subscribing to the WWE Network and getting it for 20% of the price is because there is some sort of unease with this technology. I imagine that a lot of them probably haven't heard of AEW and won't until it begins airing spots on cable. 



ste1592 said:


> Exactly. The perspective completely changes if "lapsed fans" means "haven't watched in 6 months", since it would mean the crossover is actually true but with this little "trick" you can say there is no crossover.
> 
> If they meant "haven't watched in 5 years", then their point absolutely stands.


This is a great point. I imagine that the exposure lapsed fans had to this depends on their proximity to the content that was available to promote. There are no doubt lapsed fans that bumped into something on YouTube. It becomes less likely that someone that doesn't use that media as frequently and doesn't have wrestling on the mind is going to accidentally encounter promotional material. 

I think that the audience for DoN was largely hot. That's not a bad thing. If they aren't disgusted by the AEW product, which doesn't seem to be the case, then this is a good base for them. These are fans that care about wrestling, research wrestling and actively want more wrestling. They're the "hardcore fans." On top of that, you've probably got people checking out a "first ever" event that did have months of build, even if it wasn't exposed to too many cold fans. Say what you want, but wrestling fans have been PUMPED about this show for months. Years actually, even if they couldn't imagine it. I don't think it's certain that all those fans will be back. A lot of them may have felt a sense of duty to get the first one. Others may have waited to see how the product is received though. 

The Fight for the Fallen numbers are going to be more interesting. DoN was going to get some PPV buys and streams. That wasn't really in doubt. What is going to be interesting to track is to see whether those buys go up or down. Was this a one-time thing or will they create repeat customers and appeal to more lapsed fan and possibly a new wider base? TV is going to be interesting for that reason too. When they start airing promotional material on TV, those people who don't want to use OTT media are going to know about AEW. The old granny who keeps cable for the grandkids and her stories is going to know about AEW. _That_ is going to be an interesting time.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Beatles123 said:


> No, no. Wood, you don't understand. This was BAD. REALLY bad. :cry I'm talking Jeff Hardy vs sting at Victory road bad! :flair
> 
> It really puts into perspective how even if AEW aren't "There" yet, we shouldn't understate that they're VERY MUCH in a good spot ans we are blessed to have them right now.


Lol, I didn't appreciate how bad this was at the time, Beatles. I listened to Solomonster's review and then Meltzer and Alvarez. Good fucking gravy. 

Like, I'm not someone that is even against the idea of part-timers, theoretically. Goldberg projects himself like a star like no other in the business today. But I can't imagine, say, little kids watching these two alleged superheroes fight and watching them fuck up their moves and fall all over each other before a weak-ass looking Chokeslam finishes things. The mystique of those two dudes must be gone. It's fucking time, guys.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

Reggie Dunlop said:


> I consider myself to be one of those lapsed fans. I used to be big into any kind of wrestling I could find, until WWE became utterly unwatchable, which I put squarely into the last 10-15 years, getting increasingly so each passing year. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a WWE PPV, but I'm sure it's been at least 10 years. I haven't watched WWE weekly shows regularly for at least 5 years, though there have been moments of weakness here and there that I jumped back in out of curiosity (and been duly disappointed). I watch ROH now and then, and I'll hunt down an indy or NJPW match on youtube if I hear about something good, but otherwise there's not much that's both interesting and easily accessible to me, hence lapsed.
> 
> Anyway ... I couldn't wait for DoN, and did indeed pay $60 for it. I'm sure I'm not alone, especially looking at the DoN buy rate estimates and Meltzer's analysis of who's buying what. I think the term 'lapsed fan' covers a pretty wide range of viewers, and I think the common denominator would be those fans that have just been turned off by WWE to the point that they no longer watch wrestling. Until now. I'm willing to bet a coffee that AEW is pulling a lot more like me (and YOU) back into the fold.


I fall into the same category. I first stopped watching WWE back in 2003 after having watched the product since 1990. I came back after about a decade, and then stopped watching again in 2016. DON was the first wrestling event I've watched since then.

With DON absolutely shattering ECW and TNA numbers with absolute ease, after one show, and without a weekly TV program, it's a fantastic start, and bodes very well for the future. The event even generated far more same-day and second-day buzz than MITB. It's no surprise that people within the industry have raved about what the company has already achieved. 

Imagine what they can do once they start airing weekly shows on TNT.

It's great to finally have a product that is both entertaining and can also generate phenomenal numbers right off the bat. The massive commercial success coming so early is something even the most optimistic person couldn't have predicted.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

AEWMoxley said:


> I fall into the same category. I first stopped watching WWE back in 2003 after having watched the product since 1990. I came back after about a decade, and then stopped watching again in 2016. DON was the first wrestling event I've watched since then.
> 
> With DON absolutely shattering ECW and TNA numbers with absolute ease, after one show, and without a weekly TV program, it's a fantastic start, and bodes very well for the future. The event even generated far more same-day and second-day buzz than MITB. It's no surprise that people within the industry have raved about what the company has already achieved.
> 
> ...


Of the 15 released domestic buy-rates ECW had, 9 were higher than 71k. 60% of ECW's PPVs did better domestic buy-rates than AEW. They are averaging over ECW's _average_ buy-rate, _barely_, if you want to call one show an average. And that's without counting the unreleased ECW PPV buys. This is also across many different media forms. If you want to get technical, you could say that AEW, given that apparently traditional PPV buys and OTT buys were split evenly, only did 35,500 traditional PPV buys. This would be splitting hairs though, because it's hard to imagine those B/R Live subscribers not ordering the PPV through traditional metrics. But, to a PPV company, that number doesn't beat _any_ ECW PPV.

This may not matter to some fans, and that's cool, but you're implementing a very liberal use of the word "smash" there. Hey, they smashed ECW's lowest buy-rate that's true. There's still 28,000 buys between them and Heat Wave '99 though. How is that smashing them? Even if you counted the international customers, which is grossly unfair, then they've only done 14,000 better. There were more people at the very shitty Money in the Bank that apparently no one would pay money for than the margin that counts as "smashing" Heat Wave '99 from a _global_ audience versus a domestic one.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Okay, let's put this into perspective for a second: 

There are 195 countries in the world. If you got two people from each country to watch you clap your hands as someone throws cupcakes at your ass, then that's an audience of 390 people. If the primary market for this clapping and cupcakes show gets 300 people, then you've got 690 people, yeah? But last year the guy who ate as many hot dogs as he could got 500 people to watch him eat those hot dogs in the primary market. That's _more_ than those 300 people who watched the cupcakes and the clapping. If hot dog guy got to take his hot dog eating to all other 194 countries, it's possible that no one in those countries would like his hot dog eating. But it's also possible that he might get 3 people from each country to enjoy it. That's 582 extra people who liked his hot dog eating. It is unfair to say that the cupcake and clapping show absolutely smashed the hot dog eating guy just because they got 2 people from each country to watch. This is especially dubious if hot dog eating guy was in the position to get 1,082 people to watch his hot dog eating if he got to tour.


----------



## J0nMoxley (May 27, 2019)

This is great news and good signs showing that lasped fans or possibly new fans giving this a try and hopefully Aew keep that momentum because weekly programing is no joke.


----------



## Terminus (Jan 22, 2013)

RapShepard said:


> Yeah it just sounds like something is being left out or a "trick" is there. But either way convincing that many folk to drop $50 can only be a good sign. I wouldn't want to regularly pay $50, but I can't imagine that many folk were disappointed in the show once the big matches ended. So it'll be interesting how their TV does. I can see them hovering around 1.0 easily
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt things can bring folk back. But it's hard to buy someone lapsed as long as you did were just willing to drop $50 out of curiosity. I'm guessing when you came back for Punk you started off with watching him on TV and not paying for PPVs to see what he was about.


I quit WWE in 2013 and brought the PPV. They may be more of us then you think. With that said your probably right and it's somewhere in middle. I saw a startling number on Raw currents ratings number and how its lost over half it viewers in 10 years how is that even possible?


----------



## Reggie Dunlop (Nov 2, 2015)

The Wood said:


> Okay, let's put this into perspective for a second:
> 
> There are 195 countries in the world. If you got two people from each country to watch you clap your hands as someone throws cupcakes at your ass, then that's an audience of 390 people. If the primary market for this clapping and cupcakes show gets 300 people, then you've got 690 people, yeah? But last year the guy who ate as many hot dogs as he could got 500 people to watch him eat those hot dogs in the primary market. That's _more_ than those 300 people who watched the cupcakes and the clapping. If hot dog guy got to take his hot dog eating to all other 194 countries, it's possible that no one in those countries would like his hot dog eating. But it's also possible that he might get 3 people from each country to enjoy it. That's 582 extra people who liked his hot dog eating. It is unfair to say that the cupcake and clapping show absolutely smashed the hot dog eating guy just because they got 2 people from each country to watch. This is especially dubious if hot dog eating guy was in the position to get 1,082 people to watch his hot dog eating if he got to tour.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

Terminus said:


> I quit WWE in 2013 and brought the PPV. They may be more of us then you think. With that said your probably right and it's somewhere in middle. I saw a startling number on Raw currents ratings number and how its lost over half it viewers in 10 years how is that even possible?


Were you still watching wrestling in general in the meantime?


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

The Wood said:


> Okay, let's put this into perspective for a second:
> 
> There are 195 countries in the world. If you got two people from each country to watch you clap your hands as someone throws cupcakes at your ass, then that's an audience of 390 people. If the primary market for this clapping and cupcakes show gets 300 people, then you've got 690 people, yeah? But last year the guy who ate as many hot dogs as he could got 500 people to watch him eat those hot dogs in the primary market. That's _more_ than those 300 people who watched the cupcakes and the clapping. If hot dog guy got to take his hot dog eating to all other 194 countries, it's possible that no one in those countries would like his hot dog eating. But it's also possible that he might get 3 people from each country to enjoy it. That's 582 extra people who liked his hot dog eating. It is unfair to say that the cupcake and clapping show absolutely smashed the hot dog eating guy just because they got 2 people from each country to watch. This is especially dubious if hot dog eating guy was in the position to get 1,082 people to watch his hot dog eating if he got to tour.


This reads like a maths question from a textbook written by Scott Steiner


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

Laughable Chimp said:


> This reads like a maths question from a textbook written by Scott Steiner


:ha
@The Wood ; , I love you but this guy right here nailed it. You really do over complicate this shit and then pass it off as having an ability to understand things more objectively than the rest of us sometimes, and I think this post exemplifies that. :mj2


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

RapShepard said:


> Yeah it just sounds like something is being left out or a "trick" is there. But either way convincing that many folk to drop $50 can only be a good sign. I wouldn't want to regularly pay $50, but I can't imagine that many folk were disappointed in the show once the big matches ended. So it'll be interesting how their TV does. I can see them hovering around 1.0 easily
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt things can bring folk back. But it's hard to buy someone lapsed as long as you did were just willing to drop $50 out of curiosity. I'm guessing when you came back for Punk you started off with watching him on TV and not paying for PPVs to see what he was about.


The absolute best person they can attract is someone that liked wrestling when they were a kid and now has a good job. Double or Nothing I think did a good job of attracting those people. Some sports/news websites I browse when I'm bored in my office at work had stories on the show. 

The show got some press but it got the right kind of press. As in websites with readers that might actually pay for the show were covering it. 

Splitting $50 on it with a friend probably saved me money on a weekend night where I didn't go out.


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

The Wood said:


> Okay, let's put this into perspective for a second:
> 
> There are 195 countries in the world. If you got two people from each country to watch you clap your hands as someone throws cupcakes at your ass, then that's an audience of 390 people. If the primary market for this clapping and cupcakes show gets 300 people, then you've got 690 people, yeah? But last year the guy who ate as many hot dogs as he could got 500 people to watch him eat those hot dogs in the primary market. That's _more_ than those 300 people who watched the cupcakes and the clapping. If hot dog guy got to take his hot dog eating to all other 194 countries, it's possible that no one in those countries would like his hot dog eating. But it's also possible that he might get 3 people from each country to enjoy it. That's 582 extra people who liked his hot dog eating. It is unfair to say that the cupcake and clapping show absolutely smashed the hot dog eating guy just because they got 2 people from each country to watch. This is especially dubious if hot dog eating guy was in the position to get 1,082 people to watch his hot dog eating if he got to tour.






Beatles123 said:


> :ha
> 
> @The Wood ; , I love you but this guy right here nailed it. You really do over complicate this shit and then pass it off as having an ability to understand things more objectively than the rest of us sometimes, and I think this post exemplifies that. :mj2


Steiner math? :deanfpalm

Paul Heyman (the hot dog guy... lol) didn't have access to today's global internet platforms, but if he did, we don't know (in either direction) what difference that would make to the numbers, while AEW put out a different type of product to a wider, more accessible market, rendering the comparison less straightforward than a side-by-side "A smashed B".

It might be the case that AEW is smashing TNA/ECW in terms of market penetration, but we can't know that from these numbers.

As previously noted, retention will be the key, and I think AEW know that - hence Cody's brilliant plea at the end of DoN to work those hardcore fans in attendance into feeling obligated to continue travelling to their shows and supporting their little family. They seem very much aware that continued support from that same hardcore audience will be crucial in the initial stages of growing their brand.

But the hardcore-centric focus would be short-term, I suspect the medium-term hope is they'll be putting out a superior product on TV that is able to hook in those casual fans bored with WWE (<12 months lapsed). Do _that_ well, and it'll be obvious AEW has smashed ECW/TNA.


----------



## IronMan8 (Dec 25, 2015)

The Wood said:


> It doesn’t go to reason that WWE PPV metrics would have dropped that much. The people buying PPV could be the people who are still watching. If you applied this principle in reverse, you are suggesting that if AEW had a rating of 4.5 million viewers then it would literally be doing something like 450,000 buys. That’s ridiculous and is _a lot_ of wishful thinking.
> 
> I think they would find 100k people who would pay for a WWE PPV in 2019, since their domestic number is still at 16k, which is almost a third of DON with people choosing to do that instead of simply paying $9.99 or even getting the WWE Network for free. There are literally over 15k in the United States who will still pay $50 for WWE PPVs when they actually cost 20% of that price. That number goes up massively if you drop the Network or charge for them through it. I guarantee it does better than DON. Converting just 3% of your television audience beats AEW. By your own words, you are comparing a one-off show with “regularly.” That’s not a fair comparison. Anyone with a brain can see that.
> 
> ...


This analysis is perfectly correct. I'd like to add what I think is the missing point which explains where @Beatles123 is coming from and where you win the argument. (Apologies if this was already pointed out and I missed it)

In 2019, the WWE product is purposefully built around the WWE Network model of ensuring consumers maintain their $9.99 per month subscription, which is different to utilising Raw/SD as a platform to entice consumers to pay $50 for a traditional PPV.

Thus, the argument that today's PPV buy numbers would drop disproportionately to the analysis you've provided above is not a rebuttal of the above analysis, it's just an observation that WWE does business differently in 2019 - they're not currently in the business of selling a $50 PPV each month. 

The theorised disproportionately low PPV buy rates on this basis is therefore a fallacy.

If WWE reverted back to the traditional PPV model, then the product would adjust accordingly, and as a consequence, one would expect the actual PPV buys in 2019 to be consistent with the analysis above.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

Laughable Chimp said:


> This reads like a maths question from a textbook written by Scott Steiner


That's what I was going for. I've got to TEACH all my FREAKS!


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

IronMan8 said:


> which explains where @Beatles123 is coming from and where you win the argument.


 :taker The hell?!? What argument?! Where was I arguing with him, and even if I was, why do you have to paint me as the example of the wrong side? Fuck that.



The Wood said:


> That's what I was going for. I've got to TEACH all my FREAKS!


"Teach" he says....yikes. :hutz


----------



## ste1592 (Dec 20, 2014)

Terminus said:


> I quit WWE in 2013 and brought the PPV. They may be more of us then you think. With that said your probably right and it's somewhere in middle. I saw a startling number on Raw currents ratings number and how its lost over half it viewers in 10 years how is that even possible?


There seems to be a little confusion around my posts in here. 

I never meant to say that it's absolutely impossible that DoN brought back fans who haven't been watching in years; what I said is that logic suggests that a guy who quit wrestling 6 months ago is more likely to be brought back than a guy who quit 6 years ago, simply because the latter isn't used to watch wrestling anymore, is not into the bubble anymore.

If you don't actively look for wrestling stuff in the Internet, I would say it would be difficult to even know that a new company is in town.


----------



## Terminus (Jan 22, 2013)

RapShepard said:


> Were you still watching wrestling in general in the meantime?


No not at all. Once TNA moved from spike it was over.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

Laughable Chimp said:


> The Wood said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's put this into perspective for a second:
> ...


LMAO.

Holy fuck that post is bonkers and killed some brain cells for me.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

optikk sucks said:


> LMAO.
> 
> Holy fuck that post is bonkers and killed some brain cells for me.


The guy is a troll, but he inadvertently helped shed some light on what AEW has achieved in such a short amount of time, and how utterly impressive it is.

The last really big transformation in distribution came in the 80s/90s, with deregulation & satellite TV massively expanding the amount of TV channels all around the world, which dramatically increased the opportunity for international distribution. US media conglomerates in particular began expanding globally with ease at that point. What you're seeing today is a change in how content is delivered, which is certainly altering the market, but it's not the massive transformation that we saw in the 80s and 90s. Yet, despite that, no other wrestling promotion outside the WWE, over the last couple of decades, has been able to have the distribution that AEW has. Even in today's environment, no non-WWE promotion has been able to achieve this. None of them could touch AEW on this front, then or now, because none of them have the same worldwide connections as the Khan family.

In two of the biggest wrestling markets on the planet, AEW has partnered with TNT, which is available in 90 million homes, and with ITV, which is available in 27 million UK homes (in contrast, BT Sport, which will air WWE content, is only available in 2.2 million homes.) Forget non-WWE promotions - in the US and UK combined, two massive wrestling markets, AEW has already achieved better TV distribution than _WWE._


----------



## shandcraig (Mar 23, 2008)

I hope people are not fussing over this to to much.


----------



## Optikk is All Elite (Sep 5, 2007)

AEWMoxley said:


> The guy is a troll, but he inadvertently helped shed some light on what AEW has achieved in such a short amount of time, and how utterly impressive it is.
> 
> The last really big transformation in distribution came in the 80s/90s, with deregulation & satellite TV massively expanding the amount of TV channels all around the world, which dramatically increased the opportunity for international distribution. US media conglomerates in particular began expanding globally with ease at that point. What you're seeing today is a change in how content is delivered, which is certainly altering the market, but it's not the massive transformation that we saw in the 80s and 90s. Yet, despite that, no other wrestling promotion outside the WWE, over the last couple of decades, has been able to have the distribution that AEW has. Even in today's environment, no non-WWE promotion has been able to achieve this. None of them could touch AEW on this front, then or now, because none of them have the same worldwide connections as the Khan family.
> 
> In two of the biggest wrestling markets on the planet, AEW has partnered with TNT, which is available in 90 million homes, and with ITV, which is available in 27 million UK homes (in contrast, BT Sport, which will air WWE content, is only available in 2.2 million homes.) Forget non-WWE promotions - in the US and UK combined, two massive wrestling markets, AEW has already achieved better TV distribution than _WWE._


AEW is Worldwide :brock

honestly though, for a company that literally only the internet has heard of, this is VERY impressive.

can't wait for october


----------



## The Raw Smackdown (Jan 8, 2017)

At the end of the day AEW did well. They're off to a good start and I personally only hope that they keep and maintain this momentum.


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

optikk sucks said:


> LMAO.
> 
> Holy fuck that post is bonkers and killed some brain cells for me.


It's literally that simple, yet some people just don't get it. 



AEWMoxley said:


> The guy is a troll, but he inadvertently helped shed some light on what AEW has achieved in such a short amount of time, and how utterly impressive it is.
> 
> The last really big transformation in distribution came in the 80s/90s, with deregulation & satellite TV massively expanding the amount of TV channels all around the world, which dramatically increased the opportunity for international distribution. US media conglomerates in particular began expanding globally with ease at that point. What you're seeing today is a change in how content is delivered, which is certainly altering the market, but it's not the massive transformation that we saw in the 80s and 90s. Yet, despite that, no other wrestling promotion outside the WWE, over the last couple of decades, has been able to have the distribution that AEW has. Even in today's environment, no non-WWE promotion has been able to achieve this. None of them could touch AEW on this front, then or now, because none of them have the same worldwide connections as the Khan family.
> 
> In two of the biggest wrestling markets on the planet, AEW has partnered with TNT, which is available in 90 million homes, and with ITV, which is available in 27 million UK homes (in contrast, BT Sport, which will air WWE content, is only available in 2.2 million homes.) Forget non-WWE promotions - in the US and UK combined, two massive wrestling markets, AEW has already achieved better TV distribution than _WWE._


Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. They must be leading with their unsound biases, *AEW*Moxley.

"Achieved" is an odd word choice there. They are in a wonderful position, but they're still in formative development. They have come in and swooped an audience, which is smart, but as far as "achieving" goes, they have produced one show with critical success and mild commercial success. If anyone has "achieved" something by this point, then it's the Khans building a business reputation that allows them these relationships. 

What you're doing is coding some truth with some pretty big dishonest representations of the evolution of media. The "last really big transformation" is a completely subjective statement. That PPV is now available on a billion more devices than it was even ten years ago is pretty important, and you're downplaying it while calling getting 14,000 more viewers "smashing." It's also dismissing just how radical shifts in programming and accessibility have been. For example, how many people would have ordered an AEW PPV if they had to watch it live? Back in the 80's/90's they might have had VHS, but make no mistake that scheduling was far more an issue than it is now. In a wrestling context, you could see how this affected international PPVs and taped shows. It doesn't matter anywhere near as much now. You used to have to order PPV through your TV. Anyone with a family will tell you that getting the TV on lock was not a certain thing. How many families had one or two TVs with cable access, versus how many people in families now have access to some sort of device with internet access?

You do realize that cable is different country-to-country right? Yes, international expansion was possible, but your wording "with ease" is extremely loaded. Different countries have different media models. They have different populations and the market is entirely different. For example, the US has quite a large population and can get 1% of the population and it be considered a sizable number of people from an advertiser's perspective. Even 1% of 1% is 32,720 people. The UK has a population of 66.04 million. Australia has 24.6 million. You had to question whether or not 6,604 and 2,460 people, respectively, are worth the business concerns. Now it doesn't matter nearly as much. Many media delivery mechanisms are simply looking for content and are accessible all over the world. It's just utter _bullshit_ to say that expanding internationally was _easy_ just because of satellite and cable. 

Man, so fucking easy to get into China, isn't it? Fucking hell. 

You actually make a good point about the Khans being connected. I already touched on this, but their credibility is a massive boon for AEW. I've been saying that for months, before you joined and started accusing people of being trolls. When people were calling AEW a "t-shirt company" or whatever, I told them to get serious, because this is for real. I predicted the TNT deal, and I have said there is no reason they can't beat WWE in the TV ratings. This is not an anti-AEW point. What they have going for them is billionaire backing. The Khans have the resources to generate a sustainable wrestling promotion for years. That is what sets them apart from other promotions that are not seeing these deals pop up. It's got little to do with content at this point. The real war is going on behind the scenes, and will be waged with TV rights fees and public perception.

Other promotions actually _do_ have a lot of the mediums available to them at this point. When I went to check out AEW, Impact Wrestling was also there, as well as other wrestling promotions. None of these would get a sniff 10 years ago. That being said, what AEW does have are the resources to be perceived seriously and increase their credibility and scope with things like the TNT and ITV deal. That's a very good thing, and money is all it has ever taken to compete with Vince McMahon. 

That being said, it still doesn't mean that AEW's buy-rates are "smashing" ECW's though. There's enough cool real stuff going on that you don't need fantasy. 



optikk sucks said:


> AEW is Worldwide :brock
> 
> honestly though, for a company that literally only the internet has heard of, this is VERY impressive.
> 
> can't wait for october


Oh jeez, I did kill a lot of your brain-cells. My apologies. 



The Raw Smackdown said:


> At the end of the day AEW did well. They're off to a good start and I personally only hope that they keep and maintain this momentum.


This is a perfectly sane way of looking at it. AEW did well, and it's a good start. We need something else in wrestling, and have for the longest time. Hopefully they keep building, and if they don't appeal to more and more people, they at least don't salt the earth so other billionaires can get involved.


----------



## Lethal Evans (Dec 18, 2013)

The Wood said:


> Drugged induce drivel


The drugs you are on sound fucking incredible. What are they?


----------



## The Wood (Nov 7, 2003)

It's called reality, maaaaaaan...you should try some.


----------



## AEWMoxley (May 26, 2019)

optikk sucks said:


> AEW is Worldwide :brock
> 
> honestly though, for a company that literally only the internet has heard of, this is VERY impressive.
> 
> can't wait for october


That's one of the more surprising aspects of this whole thing - the fact that they've been able to obtain international distribution, as well as actually garner significant interest internationally. Being on a ITV that is available to 27 million UK homes vs a network that's only available to 2 million UK homes (as is the case for WWE on BT Sport) in such a big wrestling market is huge. They are also on in talks with TSN for a TV deal, which is in the vast majority of Canadian homes. The benefit of being backed by the Khan family has been immediately beneficial, and it's what makes the difference between AEW and promotions like ECW and TNA, or any other non-WWE wrestling promotion within the last couple of decades, and why AEW has been able to smash their numbers right out of the gate.


----------



## RapShepard (Jun 20, 2014)

FITZ said:


> The absolute best person they can attract is someone that liked wrestling when they were a kid and now has a good job. Double or Nothing I think did a good job of attracting those people. Some sports/news websites I browse when I'm bored in my office at work had stories on the show.
> 
> The show got some press but it got the right kind of press. As in websites with readers that might actually pay for the show were covering it.
> 
> Splitting $50 on it with a friend probably saved me money on a weekend night where I didn't go out.


It's just hard to imagine that for DoN. Not because of anything wrong with AEW, but just because unless you folllow The Elite you'd be going in cold.

I think once they get TV them and TNT should really push BTE even if they have to cut YouTube a nice check. It's not my humor but I think it would be the best way for them to create 1st time wrestling fans




Terminus said:


> No not at all. Once TNA moved from spike it was over.


Got you


----------

