|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-03-2015, 01:37 PM | #1 |
The Champ is Here!
Posts: 13,614
|
Talking Point of the Week: What is an appropriate amount of time between PPVs?
TLP Talking Point of the Week:
This is a topic we touched on last week, but I've seen some discussion about it in various threads since then. So, I'm going to ask you guys about it all formal-like. How much time is a good amount of time between PPVs? For the past few years, we've been used to the 12 PPVs per year schedule, where we have 4 weeks before most PPVs, with 3 or 5 for a couple, sometimes 6 for Wrestlemania. If these new Network-exclusive PPV-ish events continue, we could see that 3-5 week period between PPVs reduced to 2-3 weeks. Would more frequent PPVs be a good or bad thing? In the pre-Network days, adding a bunch of extra PPVs would be seen as a cash grab, but now it's basically just extra free content. So the question is primarily about the impact more frequent PPVs would have on stories and pacing. Is 2-3 weeks enough time to build to a PPV match? Is 3-5 weeks too long to build to a match, requiring filler on Raw & Smackdown? |
06-03-2015, 01:41 PM | #2 |
wekasauce
Posts: 106,736
|
Talking point of the week: FALLOUT 4
|
06-03-2015, 01:43 PM | #3 |
wekasauce
Posts: 106,736
|
But on a serious note.
I like the direction they could potentially be heading with this. Instead of relying on PPV buys and being tied to the cable/satellite companies etc with the normal PPV setup, they are now controlling how their "most important" content is distributed. They will always have Raw, but now they are providing the only outlet for the culmination of all those storylines. That being said, I think doing "too much" will eventually lead to each individual PPV being less important, making them feel almost like a weekly Raw type thing. I do like the once-a-month format with maybe an additional 3 or 4 spread throughout the year. |
06-03-2015, 01:49 PM | #4 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
I'd like to see the Big 4 elevated to a point where nothing else touches them, then have "Network Specials" end up as occasional mid-level programming, above Raw but below the "traditional" ppv shows.
And for the love of God stol having the title on every show. Lesnar's run showed us that the title means more when seen less. |
06-03-2015, 01:51 PM | #5 |
EATER OF HOT POCKETS
Posts: 14,340
|
Two answer the original question: 3 weeks minimum.
|
06-03-2015, 02:02 PM | #6 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
6-10 hours of TV time. That will remove a lot of the filler garbage we have on WWE programming now.
|
06-03-2015, 02:09 PM | #7 |
Posts: 14
|
I really would like to see it be the Big 4 on PPV around their normal time and go back to 12 a year with the other 8 being Network exclusive and for the love of all that is holy stop giving away so many free months. Or maybe make the free month not include the specials, I am happy with my value for what I pay but it kind of pisses me off that people get it all for free on a regular basis.
|
06-03-2015, 02:25 PM | #8 |
( ._.)
Posts: 13,896
|
Netflix does a free month for new users....
|
06-03-2015, 03:19 PM | #9 |
Quark is Less Impressed.
Posts: 38,371
|
I really enjoyed Elimination Chamber. I would say they should have more live specials like that. They don't have to make a big production out of it though. Maybe film a house show. People would be tempted to go the house show if they know it's going to be on the Network too.
For non-WrestleMania season I'd say 2-3 weeks of television if I they want to make a bigger production out former House Shows. |
06-03-2015, 03:50 PM | #10 | |
WOOOOOOOOO!
Posts: 12,227
|
Quote:
|
|
06-03-2015, 04:03 PM | #11 |
Posts: 436
|
Since they aren't really competing with anyone anymore, I say 6 per year. Keep the big 4, then have MITB and NOC be the other two PPV-specific events. My calender would look like this:
Jan - Royal Rumble March/April - Wrestlemania June - MITB August - Summerslam October/November - Survivor Series December - NOC You can really use the Survivor Series/NOC/Rumble as the long build to Wrestlemania. I would also agree with using the Network for special events like what they did with King Of The Ring. Have like a 1 or 2 hour network special for the gimmick PPVs they have now like HITC & TLC where it's only Main Event caliber matches. |
06-03-2015, 04:50 PM | #12 |
President of Freedonia
Posts: 58,167
|
I really enjoyed Elimination Chamber and would have happily taken it in place of Payback.
If it were up to me I'd just go back to 1 per month. Well maybe none in March and 2 in April depending on how the calendar looks for Mania in a given year, but yeah. |
06-03-2015, 05:15 PM | #13 |
Resident drug enabler
Posts: 45,473
|
Ideally, if money didn't factor in and we were just going from a creative standpoint, I'd prefer one major PPV every 2 months and a "lesser" network special in the months between designed to be bigger than Raw but ultimately build to the PPV.
As it stands now, there is no time for anticipation to build for feuds. Kevin Owens made a surprise debut, challenged and beat Cena, and is gonna have a rematch with him all in just over a month. They could have built this up over months until there was a "big fight feel" to the rematch but now every twist and turn in the story is gonna happen in the blink of an eye. If they are deadset on having monthly network specials AND monthly PPVs though, they should make the specials more of a showcase for the midcard and have some sort of gimmick around them that doesn't necessarily blow through storylines but could help build new ones. Like King of the Ring. Basically TNA's One Night Stand idea but not filmed months in advance so that they can work in current storylines. |
06-03-2015, 05:38 PM | #14 |
Let me talk to ya
Posts: 11,749
|
I like the idea of having 2 PPVs every two weeks in this stretch of the calander. Summerslam should have a 4 or 5 week build and after that go back to the 2 week until Royal Rumble. Like the idea #1-WWF- fan had with getting the mid card showcased kinda like the TNA One Night Onlys. Kinda felt like King of the Ring was that type of show since the winner just won a gimmick. Elimination Chamber had more of a big feel to it. If it helps creative it can't hurt, only thing is that it leads to lazy booking like placing people in matches like MITB and elimination chamber without any reasoning.
|
06-03-2015, 05:49 PM | #15 |
Former TPWW Royalty
Posts: 66,588
|
Once a month or 4-5 weeks depending on the month. I prefer some spacing between ppvs just so that stuff doesn't feel rushed or just be a lazy repeat of what was done for the previous ppv. Of course with Creative and management/Vince being usually horrible, doesn't really matter how much time they get since lots of stuff gets rushed anyways.
2 weeks is ok once in a while but if the WWE does it too many times in a row, they risk burning out of ideas a lot quicker than normal. |
06-03-2015, 08:32 PM | #16 |
Inno Knows.
Posts: 43,710
|
I like it when there is the rare 6 to 8 week build, let things build to where you want to see the matches
|
06-04-2015, 07:11 AM | #17 |
Feeling Oof-y
Posts: 17,136
|
I'm probably in the minority but I'd sooner a less is more approach.
Eat was great, and because it wasn't a "real PPV" it meant they could switch things up a bit by throwing Ambrose into the Main Event and using the actual Chamber to showcase Tag Teams. However, for me it becomes a chore. So far this week I had 3 hours from Sunday, 3 hours from Monday, and an hour from Wednesday to catch up on. I've stopped watching SmackDown, rarely catch Impact now; I can't justify all that spare time on keeping up with things. I work a 50 hour week, plus travelling time, then there's other shows I want to catch like GoT, Gotham, etc. while trying to maintain a relationship and a house. It's had going, I can feel my fandom wavering right now, to the point I could just start watching PPVs once a month + NXT. Sometimes too much of a good thing (or average thing) ain't all that good. |
06-04-2015, 07:23 AM | #18 |
Fire up Chips!
Posts: 27,456
|
As long as they don't suck I consider more ppvs a good thing. If they start having PPVs every day that may be a little excessive. But then again with so many PPV that means everyone on the roster could be a main eventer. Who wouldn't love to see Bo Dallas vs Xavier Woods headlining the great PPV "SRS BSNS"
|
06-04-2015, 07:24 AM | #19 |
Fire up Chips!
Posts: 27,456
|
Actually, not joking, Serious Business would be an above average (Mike Sanders) name for a PPV.
|
06-04-2015, 07:25 AM | #20 |
Fire up Chips!
Posts: 27,456
|
Serious Business sounds like a PPV from 1995 where Diesel would take on Owen Hart or Mabel or possible both.
|
06-04-2015, 07:26 AM | #21 |
Fire up Chips!
Posts: 27,456
|
And that's all I gots to say about that.
|
06-04-2015, 08:41 AM | #22 |
Posts: 52,478
|
Funny how when you had to pay for each ppv there were too many but now I'd rather get as many as possible for my $10 lol
|
06-05-2015, 06:27 AM | #23 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,417
|
I prefer to see around 4 weeks average, maybe an occasional 3 week period. But 2 weeks is NOT enough to build up the biggest matches on the cards.
|
06-05-2015, 06:28 AM | #24 |
Rigged from the start
Posts: 35,417
|
|
06-07-2015, 08:04 PM | #25 |
Posts: 60,919
|
I'm not sure if there is a set rule for this sort of thing. The WWE has changed the game with the Network, and now you don't need to pay for each individual PPV, so having special events every now and then as a bonus actually benefits the WWE Network's appeal. The more exclusive content that is worth a shit on there, the more successful the Network is going to be.
|
06-07-2015, 10:23 PM | #26 |
President of Freedonia
Posts: 58,167
|
Thinking about this more...I think the special events would have been such a great thing in the brand split era. If I was running the company I'd re-institute the brand split and scale back to maybe 6 or 7 regular, joint-brand PPVs in 2016. I think as the Network gets more and more promotion, traditional PPV buy rates are going to continue to go down.
To supplement the loss of regular PPVs, I'd hold monthly brand-exclusive special events on the Network. Probably alternating months between Raw and SmackDown, and maybe occasionally doing one during a weeknight ala King of the Ring. They'd help to culminate storylines in months when there is not a regular PPV and would allow members of my rosters to compete in longer matches than television would normally allow for. Brand-exclusive PPVs got scrapped because people didn't want to pay to only see half the roster, but since these would be Network-exclusive more people would check it out. |
06-07-2015, 10:39 PM | #27 |
Shelly Martinez = Ratings
Posts: 23,508
|
4 weeks for the big ones would be good. Give everyone a chance to build his/her match on TV so people will actually care to tune in for the payoff.
2 weeks is okay for the slow periods, I guess, but I feel like a lot of feuds will get rushed because of it (Cena/Owens being the glaring example right now). Seems like an excuse for creative to not have to plan ahead ever, which is no good. |
06-08-2015, 09:22 AM | #28 |
Posts: 530
|
Once a minth is perfect
|