|
Someone could also argue that in the 80s when PPV was new, they had way worse TV than you see now (each show was basically 5 squash matches + 1 mid card competitive match) and that built to PPVs. The PPVs drew just fine back then.
The key to building up a PPV is to make people feel they have to spend money to see a certain match (or multiple matches). When you give them away for free every week why would anyone bother spending money for a PPV when they can see the same stuff for free?
WCW gave away plenty of PPV matches on free TV, and they are no longer in business. Now, that wasn't the reason they went out of business, but it didn't help either.
In terms of title changes, thats a booking philosophy that doesn't really have a right answer. But if you look at the WWE's best year financially (from Mania 16-17) they had 6 world title changes and all of them were on PPV, none on TV. During that time ratings were high, and profits were through the roof.
This past year there was a world title change on Smackdown for the first time in a long time, and it really didn't do all that much for TV ratings, as the numbers stayed flat. So I dont see where having a whole bunch of title changes on TV will do anything for business.
As far as the tag team issue goes, I like them. I think its a great way to get the stars on TV for free in matches without having to give away potential money making PPV matches.
|