RIP Hell In A Cell?

[Xero]

Their problem, as has been discussed MANY times, is the writing. If they want to fix this, they need to get that shit in order so people actually WANT to buy the PPV. Set out long-term plans instead of "we have Hell in a Cell next month, let's put random matches in the cell".

But in addition to the writing, with USA wanting so many 3 hour specials, they're to the point where the PPVs don't mean nearly as much as they used to. TV is where everything happens now. You could have skipped Survivor Series, seen a rematch of the main event the next night AND saw a title change. Now what sounds better: Paying $45 for a PPV that meant literally nothing or paying nothing and getting a rematch of the biggest built match PLUS a world title change?

Since USA is probably going to keep requesting MORE specials and not stopping them, I think the best way to do things is to drop half the PPVs. Six PPVs, and on off months they do the 3 hour specials. It would make the PPVs mean more and I think if they lessen the amount of PPVs, even with the same price point, they'd start making more money off them.

[whiteyford]

Originally Posted by Xero Their problem, as has been discussed MANY times, is the writing. If they want to fix this, they need to get that shit in order so people actually WANT to buy the PPV. Set out long-term plans instead of "we have Hell in a Cell next month, let's put random matches in the cell". But in addition to the writing, with USA wanting so many 3 hour specials, they're to the point where the PPVs don't mean nearly as much as they used to. TV is where everything happens now. You could have skipped Survivor Series, seen a rematch of the main event the next night AND saw a title change. Now what sounds better: Paying $45 for a PPV that meant literally nothing or paying nothing and getting a rematch of the biggest built match PLUS a world title change? Since USA is probably going to keep requesting MORE specials and not stopping them, I think the best way to do things is to drop half the PPVs. Six PPVs, and on off months they do the 3 hour specials. It would make the PPVs mean more and I think if they lessen the amount of PPVs, even with the same price point, they'd start making more money off them.

Even the shitty PPVs turn a profit though. I agree less PPVS and a longer build between them could only help the product and eventually lead to more buys, but as long as the existing ones are profitable why would Vince change it.

[Xero]

Originally Posted by whiteyford Even the shitty PPVs turn a profit though. I agree less PPVS and a longer build between them could only help the product and eventually lead to more buys, but as long as the existing ones are profitable why would Vince change it.

They'd have to take the loss and look to the future. And the numbers are getting REALLY down, in the 120k range. At that point, can't be making THAT big of a profit because I think they only get like $7 per PPV or something. Probably really off with that but I'm pretty sure they get less than 50%.

Another option would be to keep 12 (13 PPVs is stupid, especially when it forces a two week build for a PPV) but lower the the lower tier ones to like $30-$35 like the old In Your Houses were.