'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are that of the writer's and do not necessarily reflect Sportskeeda's stand on the same.
The first time WWE toyed with the idea of two brands, they had just bought out WCW.
As a final, deliberate and ultimately unbeatable move, Vince McMahon bought out his greatest rival. After three years of losing in the rating battle with Ted Turner's promotion, WWE finally managed to turn things around for themselves by taking more risks than their rivals.
Follow Sportskeeda for the latest WWE news, rumors and all other wrestling news.
WWE pushed younger talents, like Edge, and men that WCW didn't consider championship material, like Mick Foley, were given title reigns. Also, since WCW had to keep strictly PG, the WWE pushed the envelope on violence and sexual themes, which scored well with the top wrestling audience demographic of the day, males eighteen to thirty-four.
After buying out WCW, the WWE originally toyed with the idea of keeping it around as a secondary brand. Their thinking was to continue the Monday Night War, but with one company running both shows.
The plans were derailed for several reasons, one of which was Shawn Stasiak. The son of Stan the Man Stasiak had a bad habit of mouthing off to the press, and he revealed the secret ending of the Invasion PPV during an interview. Another reason was that Vince believed WCW was a failed brand, and couldn't be made successful again.
WWE instead decided that their two weekly broadcasts, SmackDown and Raw, would become their own unique brands. Initially, the Undisputed champion would appear on both shows, while Raw and SmackDown would have their own versions of mid-card and tag team belts.
The split was eventually deemed to be a failure, since it meant certain big stars like John Cena could only appear on one show or the other. It ended in 2011...only to start back up in 2016.
Now, two years later, rumours abound that the WWE are thinking of ending the brand split for the second time. Here are five reasons why they should, and five why they should not.
Should keep split brands: Crowded roster
This one is fairly obvious; Currently, WWE has a huge roster of stars. Right now there are over two dozen former world champions in various roles on both brands. If the brand split were to end, talented men like Finn Balor would be pushed even further down the card.
And if the split ends, there will be less time for every member of the roster to shine.
Should end the brand split: Everyone knows it's not a real rivalry
One of the most exciting things about the Monday Night War was that, even though the matches and angles were scripted, there were real-life stakes. Major league, life-altering real-life stakes.
At stake was the very existence of both wrestling companies. For some time--nearly three years--WWE seemed to be sinking into the abyss, as all of its major players ended up signing with WCW for more money working fewer dates.
WWE lost the rating battle every single week for those three years, and sponsorship and media attention gravitated to the WCW. Monday Nitro had major celebrities like Jay Leno and Dennis Rodman, whereas WWE had...Ben Stiller.
But all that money spending was keeping WCW just barely operating in the black. They were also gambling their entire existence on the rating war.
Fans knew that even though the wrestling may have been scripted drama, the wrestlers themselves were fighting for survival. The problem with the brand split is that the fans know good and well that there are no real stakes. When the two brands face off, the winner will be whoever WWE has scripted it to be, and that means there really are no real-world stakes for fans to become invested in.
Should not end the brand split: More time to spend on storylines
One big advantage of the brand split is the ability to keep storylines and angles developing on a single show instead of spreading out over the entire WWE.
With Superstars sorted into different camps, the storytelling becomes easier because there are less extraneous elements to factor in. It's easier for the creative team to 'connect the dots' for the basic plot path of a wrestling angle this way, simply because the cast is smaller.
A good example is the last 'frenemies' saga between Sasha Banks and Bayley. The Hugger and the Boss have been teeter-tottering back and forth between being friends and enemies for some time now. It has been teased that one or both might end up turning heel before it's all said and done, but the angle has been played out so masterfully that it's still an enigma as to what's going to happen.
If the brand split ended, the women would not likely be given as much time to develop their angle, and the wrestling fans would miss out on well-sequenced drama.
Should End the brand split: Too many title belts
Championships in wrestling have a long and storied history. During the regional territories era, there were myriad title belts as each promotion in each region had its own champion. However, those regional territories often banded together into groups like the UWF and NWA, and would name an overall 'world champion'. Of course, sometimes shenanigans would happen, and certain titles would no longer be recognized or would be merged with other titles.
During the 1980s, when the regional territories began to consolidate in order to take on the massive corporate machine the WWE had become, title belts were scaled back. When JCP was bought out by Ted Turner and turned into WCW, there were a veritable plethora of title belts in the NWA; The Western States championship, the television championship, united states championships for both singles and tag team stars, the world championship and world tag team championships, and even a six-man tag championship.
This was eventually boiled down to four belts: The world title, US title, TV Title, and Tag team title. A cruiserweight title was added during the Monday Night War, bringing the total to five.
Most promotions still follow a similar setup, having a big belt, midcarder belt, and tag team division belts. Some, such as NJPW, also have different championships based on junior and heavyweight divisions.
But in the WWE, you have belts for each individual brand. Which is better, the Universal title or the WWE Championship? And what is the difference between being Intercontinental champion and United States champion? WWE seems to be unsure, and ending the brand split would cut down on the confusion.
Should not end the brand split: More titles means more wrestlers are recognized
A funny thing happened to WWE in 2015. After the Shield split and Reigns was considered the face of the company, the brands split as well.
Reigns was the Superstar, and should have been the one being a top draw at live shows. But the WWE discovered that shows headlined by perennial mid-carder Dean Ambrose were outselling those headlined by Reigns.
Their solution was to put the big belt on BOTH men--a solution that was only available to the WWE promotion because of their brand split. This way, they could recognize Dean's contributions to the company, take advantage of his booming popularity, and prevent damage to Reigns's image all at once.
Had the federation not split itself into two brands, Dean Ambrose's title reign may not have happened--and you can say the same for AJ Styles or anyone else who has held the blue brand's title belt.
Should end the brand split: "Branded" PPVs don't always satisfy the fans
With so many stars split into two camps, there are advantages and disadvantages.
While the advantage to keeping the stars separate could be seen as the ability to maintain storylines for longer and to keep the shows more interesting by having multiple champions, the disadvantage is less obvious.
Take AJ Styles, for example. He's faced nearly everyone on the SmackDown roster in a title bout, some of them multiple times. However, he's limited by the brand split as to who he can face off against. While fans might salivate over a match between AJ Styles and Dolph Ziggler, the fact is the match can't really happen so long as the brand split is maintained.
This is why the single brand PPVs for WWE don't fare nearly as well critically or financially as shows that include both SmackDown and Raw, such as WrestleMania. Fans would like to have a chance to see ALL of their favourite WWE stars, not just the ones from either the red or blue brands.
Should not end the brand split: It's only been two years
When it comes to television programming, executives have learned that messing with the status quo is a double-edged sword.
On one hand, shaking things up tends to draw a lot of attention, at least temporarily. Media and fans alike tend to tune in just to see what form the 'bold new direction' will ultimately take.
On the other hand, you take a massive risk of alienating long-term fans by changing the essential elements of what made the entertainment appealing in the first place. Shows like Ally McBeal, which changed from an hour dramedy to a half-hour comedy, know this all too well. Heroes is another program that kept changing gears too swiftly and didn't give its fans time to settle in.
The current iteration of the brand split is only two years old. Ending it now would seem jarring to fans who have just gotten used to it. Also, some fans have only recently started watching WWE, and the brand split is all they know. Changing it up could cost WWE both long-term and new fans in the long run.
Should end the brand split: Casual fans are confused
Comic book fans, we're going to use you as an analogy to explain why both the WWE brand split and the Justice League movie failed. Both properties failed because the casual fans in the audience were confused.
Specifically, the term casual fan means someone who likes an entertainment brand -- sort of. For example, while comic book fans can quote scripture and verse about the characters in the Avengers -- did you know Jarvis was a human being in the comics?--the casual moviegoer is going to ask infuriating questions like "Why aren't Batman and Superman on the Avengers?"
Casual fans don't know every nuance of what they're viewing is based upon. A casual moviegoer is confused by the concept of two different super teams--the Avengers and Justice League--so much that they didn't bite on the latter.
Likewise, the casual wrestling fan doesn't know who invented the moonsault--it was Mando Guerrero, not the Great Muta, by the way -- but they still tune in to see big names like John Cena, the Rock, Hulk Hogan and Roman Reigns. The idea of two different brands of wrestling confuses them because they don't know why Roman Reigns isn't fighting Shinsuke Nakamura.
In short, the brand split confuses casual fans and acts as a barrier to new ones.
#9 Should not end the brand split: Trades and drafts are fun
One thing that the brand split does very well is emulated one of the more exciting aspects of the old territorial rivalry days; The prospect of talent exchanges.
Whenever a popular wrestler seemed to be getting stale in a particular territory, they would be moved to another regional promotion. For example, the Road Warriors were so dominant in the AWA that they were moved to JCP to allow other tag teams to develop.
While WWE may own both brands, separating the talent allows for a fun re-creation of the old territorial trades and drafts. The drafts and trades can even be used to further or even create storylines; When Booker T was drafted to SmackDown, it served as the impetus for his heel turn. Booker was ungrateful to be on what he considered the 'lesser show' and the 'minor leagues.' It was the attitude that would eventually develop into his King Booker persona, which was his most successful gimmick to date.
Should end the brand split: WWE have plenty of genuine competition
At the end of the day, the brand split was initially done to keep WWE product from becoming stale. The reason for the worry was that, for some time, WWE was the only major player in the US wrestling market.
After the end of the Monday Night Wars, WWE stood by and large alone in the wrestling marketplace. McMahon appearing on the final edition of Monday Nitro sealed WCW's fate, and he had already been heavily invested in Extreme Championship Wrestling. Even Vince was aware of the fact that interest in WWE product was helped, not hindered, by competition.
So the initial brand split was meant to keep the Monday Night Wars going in a more controlled sense. The only problem with that notion is, these days the WWE has a lot more serious competition for the attention of wrestling fans.
ROH and Impact have grown to be major players in the US market, while outside promotions from other countries are nipping at WWE's heels. Since there's so much genuine competition, the WWE has no need to fake it.
Five reasons the WWE should keep the brand split, and five they should end it. What do you think? Please leave your comments below the article and thanks for reading!
Send us news at [email protected]
