WWE PPVs

[The Gold Standard]

This topic has probably been brought up already, but I think since it is the new year it needs to be discussed again.

Would it be smart for WWE to limit their PPVs to 6-8 a year instead of 12? It seems like the buy-rates are down and a lot of the storylines get rushed because they HAVE to get the match on PPV. It just seems to me that they can build up te feuds and make the PPV matches more meaningful if there were less.

Thoughts?

[Rammsteinmad]

No, because they still make a lot of money from PPVs, and we all say that the matches will be better because they will have longer builds, but the truth about internet fans is that we'll then bitch because the build has been going on for too long and the match won't live up to the hype.

Plus... what if it's like, a two-month build into a Mark Henry match?

I like the once a month PPV, which is pretty much how it is, but a few years ago when they had like, 15 or 16 a year or something was complete overkill.

[erickman]

i am all for it 4-6 a year is all they need then people may buy them. then tna cuts to 4 of them on the months wwe does not have a ppv and helps them out too.

[XL]

One a month. Easy.

[dronepool]

I think 8-10 would be perfect and make it seem more special.

[Kane Knight]

This topic has probably been brought up already, but I think since it is the new year it needs to be discussed again.

Would it be smart for WWE to limit their PPVs to 6-8 a year instead of 12? It seems like the buy-rates are down and a lot of the storylines get rushed because they HAVE to get the match on PPV. It just seems to me that they can build up te feuds and make the PPV matches more meaningful if there were less.

Thoughts?


If you're looking at this in terms of what makes business sense (Which buyrates seems to indicate), then the amount they're making overall is better even with the lower buyrates.

More events also means more merch, which seems to be up or steady over the last few years.

From a storyline perspective, I think one of the biggest problems falls to writing. They could juggle multiple major fueds to give a monthly epic match or payoff match and still make it work. They could even keep title matches going without feuds, or use them to elevate or further feuds (as has been done before).

I just think WWE sucks at playing the long game.

I hate to compare them to video games, but remember the GM mode in SVRs of days past? The trick to staying on top basically came down to offering big matches with hot feuds, and if you could juggle three or four, you could perpetually keep the fans happy.

Now, computer fans aren't the same as real fans, and real fans are harder to pin down mechanically. But the idea is pretty sound in itself. They don't need to copy the formula exactly, but it would be beneficial to be juggling multiple, longterm goals. And hell, if you have more than one major feud, less falls apart when one guy gets injured. That';s been a major problem with WWE for years and years now, the "all eggs in one basket" problem. Book the show around Cena, get fucked when he gets injured. Book it around Trips? Fucked when he's injured. Book it around Rey? Fucked when he's injured.

though I seriously think WWE has gotten better at this. Better, but not necessarily good. There's a better mix of late, and maybe they'll get it right.

That's right boys, piss yourselves. I just said something good about WWE.

[ooTin]

I LOVE SHELTON BENJAMIN!

[YoungFlyFlashy]

12 a year and still making money off of it, if it is not broke, do not fix it.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

I think they need to have better timing with the PPVs. They should have at least three or four Raw/Smackdown to build up the ppvs. They should all be at as close to the end of the month as possible.

I'd also like New Year's Revolution to come back as a special TV show on NBC or maybe a 20 dollar ppv.

[parkmania]

Don't most wrestlers also get bonuses based on PPV appearances? I'm sure someone's figuring that into the equation too.

[bigslimjj]

As long as collegiate standout and former WWE title holder Shelton Benjamin is on one of them,I'm ok with that. But I'd say 10 would be a good number.That way they have a little extra time to hype Summerslam and WM.

[Droford]

The bigger problem is they want $55 a ppv for the HD feed.

[YoungFlyFlashy]

The bigger problem is they want $55 a ppv for the HD feed..

:y: Yeah I wonder if they could lower the price or are they just being greedy.

[Droford]

I bet they really dont want a major increase in buys..

More buys = more potential streams to have to shut down.

[screech]

I feel like one a month would do the trick, but I also wouldn't be opposed to the return of brand-exclusive shows. That may help the "rushing feuds for matches" issue without taking away too many events.

[Rammsteinmad]

I'm all for brand-only PPV's again, and since they stopped doing them, it seems I'm the only person on these boards who has wanted for their return over the years.

Maybe not so many this time around, but one Raw-only PPV a year and one Smackdown-only PPV a year would be a nice chance to allow the entire roster of that show to show what they can do.

Mind you, the rosters are all over the place these days, so I don't think it really matters anymore.

[Fox]

If you're looking at this in terms of what makes business sense (Which buyrates seems to indicate), then the amount they're making overall is better even with the lower buyrates.

More events also means more merch, which seems to be up or steady over the last few years.

From a storyline perspective, I think one of the biggest problems falls to writing. They could juggle multiple major fueds to give a monthly epic match or payoff match and still make it work. They could even keep title matches going without feuds, or use them to elevate or further feuds (as has been done before).

I just think WWE sucks at playing the long game.

I hate to compare them to video games, but remember the GM mode in SVRs of days past? The trick to staying on top basically came down to offering big matches with hot feuds, and if you could juggle three or four, you could perpetually keep the fans happy.

Now, computer fans aren't the same as real fans, and real fans are harder to pin down mechanically. But the idea is pretty sound in itself. They don't need to copy the formula exactly, but it would be beneficial to be juggling multiple, longterm goals. And hell, if you have more than one major feud, less falls apart when one guy gets injured. That';s been a major problem with WWE for years and years now, the "all eggs in one basket" problem. Book the show around Cena, get fucked when he gets injured. Book it around Trips? Fucked when he's injured. Book it around Rey? Fucked when he's injured.

though I seriously think WWE has gotten better at this. Better, but not necessarily good. There's a better mix of late, and maybe they'll get it right.

That's right boys, piss yourselves. I just said something good about WWE.

KK is right. The problem isn't the number of PPV's - 12 a month is ideal, and what they're doing now, which is like 14-15, isn't that bad either. The problem is that they don't plan for the long term.

The way they plan is like this: Guy A starts feud with Guy B and has a match at PPV 1. They have a gimmick match at PPV 2 with a possible title switch. They have another match at PPV 3 and blow it off, then both guys go off and feud with two new guys. It's so mechanical it's not even funny.

UFC has the right idea. They build up a fight for a few months, but in between those months, there are still PPV's, just featuring OTHER big fights. So, while Lesnar vs. Mir 3 is in people's minds for a couple months down the road, they're still interested in this month's PPV because it has Silva vs. Anderson. WWE would be wise to adopt this kind of thinking for their booking storylines. Plan John Cena vs. The Miz for Summerslam, but START the program after Backlash and keep them out of the ring against each other until Summerslam. Have Cena fight someone else at Judgment Day, and Miz gets involved in the finish or something. It keeps more guys involved in storylines and builds up for the big match at SS.

[Rammsteinmad]

On paper that is a great idea, but in the world of sports entertainment, especially for a company that has 3 or 4 weekly shows, nobody will wait from Backlash to Summerslam without losing interest.

The difference with UFC and WWE, is that UFC is a legit sport. Once a fight is booked, it's just a matter of waiting and letting the hype build itself up. With WWE, an organisation built by entertainment, it's these weekly/monthly altercations that keep the feuds, and the hype, going.

We (as internet fans), can only see so much of this until we get bored with it. OOOOOOR, if we're expected to wait for a match with five months of hype going into it, there is no way it will live up to our standards and be anything other than a disapointment.

Sorry, not saying you're wrong, but WWE is entertainment based and sadly waiting so long for a fight wouldn't pay off in todays market.

[whiteyford]

If they actually enforced the split, then brand only PPVs would work, if only to make the interbrand ones stand out. Bragging Rights could actually be a useful PPV then, give the winning brand something like the #30 in the rumble, but in reality its just a way to avoid 1 on 1 matches for a month.

One a month would be ideal, but its more down to the booking and the structure of them thats the problem, some feuds are only just starting up and getting a Cell match.

[Mr. C]

January - Royal Rumble

*No pay-per-view in February. Possibly have an Elimination Chamber Match on an episode of RAW or SmackDown for whichever brand the Royal Rumble winner isn’t on sometime between Royal Rumble and WrestleMania to determine the #1 contender for the other World title at WrestleMania, or save it for SummerSlam or Survivor Series. Roughly two months between Royal Rumble and WrestleMania.

Late March/early April - WrestleMania

*No pay-per-view in May. Possibly have the Draft take place in May so there's something for the fans to look forward to between WrestleMania and Capital Carnage, while giving the writers plently of time to book matches and create feuds for guys who are on the same show for the next pay-per-view, instead of throwing together a bunch of gimmicked WrestleMania rematches with wrestlers now on separate shows. Roughly two months between WrestleMania and Capital Carnage.

June - Capital Carnage
Not to be confused with this year’s Capitol Punishment, this was a UK pay-per-view that happened in December 1998. I love the idea of having a pay-per-view at the beginning of summer in London. However, this wouldn’t be a pay-per-view exclusive to the UK, as seen in the past (Capital Carnage, Insurrextion, Rebellion, etc.), but rather worldwide like every other pay-per-view. At least it would be something different, especially if they kept the ring, ring apron, etc. from the 1998 show. The stage would definitely have to change due to HD, but not much else should.

July - Money In The Bank
There would only be one Money In The Bank Ladder Match instead of two, as it seems like overkill and would make the winner look more credible. Four guys from RAW, four guys from SmackDown, one Money In The Bank winner.

August - SummerSlam

*No pay-per-view in September. Two months between SummerSlam and Vengeance.

October - Vengeance
Bring back the 2006 Vengeance setup.

November - Survivor Series
*I’d merge this with King of the Ring and have the finals of the tournament take place here. Hold the quarterfinals and semifinals on the last RAW before Survivor Series. The whole concept of the tournament fits well with the theme of Survivor Series. Oh, and as petty and silly as it sounds, Survivor Series should use black ropes. Blue ropes work for SmackDown, but not a pay-per-view, plus they don't EVER use black ropes anymore.

*No pay-per-view in December. Two months in between Survivor Series and Royal Rumble.

That’s my ideal lineup of pay-per-views every year. That would cut the number of shows down to about half of what it is now (13 to 7) and make pay-per-view seem even more special, because there would be either one month or two months in between each pay-per-view, with bigger shows like Royal Rumble and WrestleMania being given more time for build and hype, like back in the day. It would also cut out the unnecessary gimmick pay-per-views like Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, Night of Champions, Hell In A Cell, and TLC, which would allow them to use those match types less often instead of having one show filled with the exact same type of match and make it seem like a big deal when a certain gimmick match occurs. It’s better to save them until they’re ready to end a big feud, as opposed to John Cena and Randy Orton having an I Quit Match in September, only to turn around and have a Hell In A Cell Match and Iron Man Match, both in the very following month. Even if they kept their pay-per-view prices the same, I still think the WWE would actually make more money this way.

While I'm on the subject of pay-per-views, I'd like to add one thing that takes away from them is Michael Cole on commentary. It's not even so much him playing a heel as it is he just sucks at announcing, face or heel. However, it would be crazy to completely take him off TV. Perfect example of this is Vickie Guerrero. She made a horrible General Manager, but they gave the GM position back to Theodore Long and turned her into a manager for Dolph Ziggler, which has proven to be a great way to further get Ziggler over. Remove Cole from the announce booth completely (PPV, RAW, & SmackDown), but turn him into a manager for somebody and use his heat to get them over. I think the perfect candidate for Cole to manage would be a returning Mason Ryan. Ryan shouldn't talk. Just let Cole do all the talking, and have Ryan wreck people in the ring. Cole managing Ryan could definitely get him over and would leave the commentary on RAW to Jerry Lawler and Jim Ross and SmackDown to Booker T and Josh Matthews, with every pay-per-view being called by the trio of Booker, King, & JR.

[Emperor Smeat]

The 12 PPVs per year (1 per month) would be the best plan since it gives them more time to plan for feuds and PPV interest. PPV prices have gone up but the quality of the ppvs haven't been increasing at a consistent rate.

Like others have said, the WWE is horrible at long term planning for more than 1 feud and the quality of their writers. They seem to focus everything on 1 major feud and then quickly toss a few quick feuds or random matches a short time before a ppv.

I wouldn't go back to brand exclusive PPVs since it didn't end up as an improvement over the traditional PPV and was over-saturated in title matches.

[Mr. Pierre]

Brand exclusive shows sound good on paper, but I'd say about 80% of them were below average to shit.

WWE didn't really "push" any other talent, they just gave them a PPV slot with time and also no meaning. If they go back to the exclusive shows and do it the right way, I think it has potential.

[The One]

Once a month works. Why must we attempt to fix a perfectly fine situation?

[XL]

Because they're not once a month?

[XL]

In 2011 there are PPVs on September 18th, October 2nd and October 23rd. There's one too many right there.

[Shisen Kopf]

Royal Rumble, WM, king of the ring, summerslam and survivor series are all they need

[Fox]

On paper that is a great idea, but in the world of sports entertainment, especially for a company that has 3 or 4 weekly shows, nobody will wait from Backlash to Summerslam without losing interest.

The difference with UFC and WWE, is that UFC is a legit sport. Once a fight is booked, it's just a matter of waiting and letting the hype build itself up. With WWE, an organisation built by entertainment, it's these weekly/monthly altercations that keep the feuds, and the hype, going.

We (as internet fans), can only see so much of this until we get bored with it. OOOOOOR, if we're expected to wait for a match with five months of hype going into it, there is no way it will live up to our standards and be anything other than a disapointment.

Sorry, not saying you're wrong, but WWE is entertainment based and sadly waiting so long for a fight wouldn't pay off in todays market.

I still disagree, and I think it's exactly this kind of thinking which causes us to have so many short-term programs that fly by and never really "mean" anything. I mean what was the last main event feud that truly had a "this means something important" feel to it? I suppose that's very subjective, but for me it was probably the Chris Jericho/HBK feud over the World Heavyweight Title, or perhaps CM Punk/Jeff Hardy, and it was because the feuds were drawn out and meant more than just "I want the title and I don't like you."

I think Sting vs. Hollywood Hogan is the best example I could give. Eric Bischoff took a huge risk keeping Sting out of the ring for a year. He was one of the top guys, one of the only guys the fans looked at as an equal to the nWo, and yet they built that storyline for an entire year before the big pay-off match (which sucked and had a shitty ending, but that's beside the point). But the ratings for Starrcade 97 were through the roof. Interest for Sting/Hogan was higher than perhaps anything WCW ever did, and it was because they did the slow burn, and they did it right. And the company didn't suffer because WCW was still using it's other stars: DDP, Ric Flair, Lex Luger, Macho Man, Roddy Piper and others to keep the main event scene interesting. But in the end, even while Hogan was wrestling The Giant on PPV, people were still thinking about "Where's Sting and when is he going to kick Hogan's ass?"

If the WWE had the foresight and patience to book an angle like that, I think it would not only spike the PPV buyrates, but it would make for amazing television. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see an angle that long in the WWE, due to their ADD-like nature.

[Fox]

Nexus/Cena is a prime example. When Cena got fired, that angle could've played out all the way to WrestleMania and we could've had Cena versus Barrett in some huge blow-off match. Have Cena stay off TV for awhile and then after 3-4 weeks away, make a surprise appearance at a PPV or a RAW and kick some ass and then take off running. Play the thing out over 3-4 months until Cena gets Barrett and the RAW GM to the point where they either let Cena come back for a match against Barrett at Mania, or they continue to suffer the consequences. I find John Cena utterly boring, and yet the idea of an angle like that would get me to watch.

[Kane Knight]

12 a year and still making money off of it, if it is not broke, do not fix it.

I think a number of people are making the argument that it is broken. "still making money" doesn't necessarily mean it's not broken, as any company on a decline can attest.

The bigger problem is they want $55 a ppv for the HD feed.

People will pay for it, so why not?

Brand exclusive shows sound good on paper, but I'd say about 80% of them were below average to shit.

WWE didn't really "push" any other talent, they just gave them a PPV slot with time and also no meaning. If they go back to the exclusive shows and do it the right way, I think it has potential.

I agree. If they can take those brand-specific PPVs and run with them, they can double their star power and keep things going longer.

But if they do it as they did, then it'll be a shit sammich.

Nexus/Cena is a prime example. When Cena got fired, that angle could've played out all the way to WrestleMania and we could've had Cena versus Barrett in some huge blow-off match. Have Cena stay off TV for awhile and then after 3-4 weeks away, make a surprise appearance at a PPV or a RAW and kick some ass and then take off running. Play the thing out over 3-4 months until Cena gets Barrett and the RAW GM to the point where they either let Cena come back for a match against Barrett at Mania, or they continue to suffer the consequences. I find John Cena utterly boring, and yet the idea of an angle like that would get me to watch.

:y:

It's a shame, too, because for a while NExus was one of the most exciting things they had done.

[James Steele]

I have a solution that will make WWE literally BILLIONS in pay-per-view revenue...

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6879/kingsransomppv.jpg

[The Gold Standard]

Once a month works. Why must we attempt to fix a perfectly fine situation?

Because it is fun to speculate

[Cool King]

I have a solution that will make WWE literally BILLIONS in pay-per-view revenue...

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6879/kingsransomppv.jpg

UK & Ireland version.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7633/wweppv.jpg