2 PPVs a month?

[Blue Demon]

It's being reported that WWe plans to have two PPVs a month...do you guys think this is a good idea?

http://www.wrestleview.com/news2004/1077324505.shtml

[Rock Bottom]

Hell yes it is.

[Savio]

They've done it before

[ilt_undertaker]

<font color=Silver>As long as both the PPV's arent $34.95, then I dont care</font>

[MVP]

I don't like the idea of two PPV's a month fora couple reasons.

First of all, the brand extension allows for more feud build-up and match hype. If WWE starts throwing shit together like that monthly there won't be any excitement to most, if not any of the matches. Even though that's the usual standard WWE goes by today. :D

Secondly, the more often PPV's are shown on TV, the less crebility they get. The titles would change hands more and more, and there are some matches that are bound to be repeated over and over again. (Test and Steiner anyone?)

[Hired Hitman]

you have to pay 34? hahaha We only pay 20-25 :cool:

[Savio]

The titles would change hands more and more.
Not the heavy weight if HHH has anything to do with it.

[123 kid]

you have to pay 34? hahaha We only pay 20-25 :cool:


In the U.K we only have to pay £15 for p.p.v's and we don't even have to pay for some of them (Wrestlemania,No Way Out,Survivor Series,Summerslam,No Mercy etc...) :cool:

BTW: I think it would be a bad idea WWE running two P.P.V's a month as some fans may get sick of them (I wouldn't).

[Kane Knight]

I voted no, but it's kind of a conditional thing.

The main factors for me are:

1) Price: The WWE hasn't even been good enough for me to buy every PPV that's come out. I'm sure as Hell not paying 30 bucks per PPV twice a month, when I won't even always pay it once a month...

2) Quality: I like the fact that, with more than a couple weeks between PPVs, feuds and storylines can actually be BUILT UP like they used to, instead of being almost an afterthought. Like I said, I'm not gonna pay twice as much for the same quality.

It's gonna take an overall improvement in order for me to be willing to shell out.

However, maybe there are enough people who will buy anything wrestling to make it worth their while.

[Blue Demon]

I also went with no. The main reason being buid up. There wouldn't be enough for each brand to build up and I would think that having two PPVs a month would be too much for wrestling fans to keep up with.

[blake639raw]

Why would I want to pay to see TWO ppv's a month? They can't even convince me to order one a month. There's a such thing as overkill. I think they should cut back on the number of brand specific PPV's, and try to build to more meaningful shows. The way they book shit, no one really gets into anything. Besides, half the time the PPV's aren't any better than a RAW or SmackDown that I can watch for absolutely free. I think they should cut back to 6-8 PPV's a year. The big 4 , and maybe one or two brand specifics for each side.

[Kane Knight]

Why would I want to pay to see TWO ppv's a month? They can't even convince me to order one a month. There's a such thing as overkill.

So so true.

Work on getting what you've got right before you expand.

[The Ravishing One]

I also went with no. The main reason being buid up. There wouldn't be enough for each brand to build up and I would think that having two PPVs a month would be too much for wrestling fans to keep up with.

:y:

[Funky Fly]

2 PPVs a month can't work. The only people who benefit are HHH, HBK and anyone else who loves holding people down.

The fans get sub par shows at probably the same $30+ price. The majority of the wrestlers, although getting more PPV slots, get put in meaningless feuds that don't go anywhere. And The writing team will have to book more shows, which leads to less effort being put into individual storylines.

[Corkscrewed]

Basically, what everyone's said against 2 PPV's a month.

[Rock Bottom]

I said yes because I am trying to see how bad the WWE can really get.

[Tornado]

<font color=#33ffff>Hell NO. The WWE seem inept at the moment to book a PPV worth buying (i get them free on Sky, so it doesnt bother me :D)
Anyway, with their inability to book consistantly, two PPV's a month would be a really bad idea.</font>

[The CyNick]

Why would I want to pay to see TWO ppv's a month? They can't even convince me to order one a month. There's a such thing as overkill. I think they should cut back on the number of brand specific PPV's, and try to build to more meaningful shows. The way they book shit, no one really gets into anything. Besides, half the time the PPV's aren't any better than a RAW or SmackDown that I can watch for absolutely free. I think they should cut back to 6-8 PPV's a year. The big 4 , and maybe one or two brand specifics for each side.

In theory this is a good idea, however the numbers indicate that its probably a bad idea. The lowest PPV buy the WWE got int he last few years was for the Armageddon show which drew 215,000 buys at last count. If you were to say that the WWE should go down to 4 PPVs a year for exmaple, that would mean they would lose 1.7 million buys over the year (using the Armageddon number as a benchmark, which is very conservative).

In order to make it worhtwhile, the 4 remaining PPVs would have to make up those buys at a minimum (it would actually be a lot more, because the WWE would lose on some ad revenues, gate for the house and so on). So, by my math, that would mean each major PPV would have to draw an extra 430,000 buys.

Now, if we look at the numbers for the 'big 4' PPV, its 470,000 buys (using '03 numbers, which were not great), so if you add the two, that would mean each of the 4 majors would have to do well over 900,000 buys (cause like I said these numbers are conservative, real number would be north of a million).

There has only been one PPV in WWE history, or in wrestling history for that matter that topped 900K buys, and that was a little show called Wrestlemania X-Seven, which many say was the greatest PPV in WWE history.

So, I dont see how the WWE would gain that many buys for their major PPVs simply by eliminating, the non major PPVs. If you look at the WWE's numbers, their biggest money maker are the PPvs, and if you eliminate some, you have to make up that money in some form. Like I said, I dont think that would be possible.

I think the idea at this point is to add 2 PPVs in a year or so. This idea is still in the planning stages, so nothing is a guarantee. They have to get the current crop of 12 PPVs to stablize before they start adding new PPVs. I recall hearing in a couple of places that they may add a new brand to replace Confidential, so maybe that brand would do 2 PPV per year, but that seems like a bad idea with their only exposure being at 11PM on Saturday nights. I think long terms they'd like to get to a point where they have a brand exclusive PPv a month, and then leave the 'big 4' as the only PPVs in that month. But, like I said thats a long-term thing, in fact i dont think we'll actually see it unless the WWE gets really popular again.

I agree with the idea that having more time between the PPVs is a good thing, personally I like the current format, but if they can add 8 extra PPVs over the next 3 years say, and they can get around 225,000 buys for all of them, its a huge shot in the arm for business. So I guess we'll see.

[Sensei Of Mattitude]

NO! They are shitty at building their shit product up as it is now. RAW only PPVs suck, Smackdown's are worse. Its a terrible idea.