Thread: WWE PPVs
View Single Post
Old 01-01-2011, 02:42 PM   #6
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
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.
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote