"You want Less WWE PPV's, You got it ... Oh, but you're going to have to pay for it!"

[haristna]

I Was Just Joking a 7.0 Thats not going to happen i see them breaking a 4.5 but no more then that , Everybody Knows that UFC as of late has had better ratings then WWE

[lame_excuse]

Originally Posted by wolvdog316

TNA just needs that HUGE star. WWE had it in Hogan, then Bret and Shawn, then Austin and Rock. WCW had it in Hogan, then Sting, then Goldberg. TNA needs that one in a million star that makes you, even for one second, suspend belief and become emerged in their product. AJ and Samoa sadly is not it. As much as I love AJ, he can't be it. People doesn't care about him.

You do realize that TNA doesn't have a large-enough fanbase, right? It's all about how many fans are behind this person.
If AJ Styles were to move over to WWE and they would push him, I can definitely see this working. Then jumping ship back to TNA, he'd have all the credibility and the fanbase to back up his star-status. What I'm saying is: TNA is small. They don't have squat.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Lord Sidious

Well, it appears that WWE is hearing its customers say that there are entirely too many WWE PPV's on the schedule, so it appears that they are doing something about it.

I wouldn't say it's as much that they've heard our complaints on this wrestling forum, I'd say it's evidenced by the (I'm sure) lower buyrates the months that have 2 ppvs crammed into them are seeing. Or, they are seeing the reduction in buyrates and attributing it to overkill on behalf of the 14 ppvs a year.

How angry are WWE PPV customers going to be at this latest turn of events? Big deal, or no Big Deal?

No big deal. They'll see it as the WWE having to raise prices to stay in business, like all other companies are having to do in this economy. That's how I see it. And besides, they are losing a PPV. While it looks like they're removing Judgement Day, so it's not like they're losing Summerslam or anything like that, they are still losing substantial money. That extra 5 dollars per buy on every PPV, which see around what 150,000 buys on average, is more than enough to make up for one ppv. It's not like they're raising the price of Mania.

However, in the very least, I may have to request some assistance from the "WWE Shareholders" out there. We are probably going to need your PR expertise to put the positive PR "customer-friendly" spin on this situation, here.

It's not as much "customer-friendly" as "trying to stay in business."

[johnbragg]

When are consumers going to take control and say "You know what Vince? You're not going to rip me off. Instead, I'm ordering two less PPVs a year to make up for the money you are cheating me from, or perhaps even ordering less than that for being greedy and trying to cheat consumers."

This only applies if people were buying every PPV. I'm sure some fraction of the PPV audience is, but another fraction decides. On what basis is a hodgepodge--quality of matchups, whether they got extra hours at their part time job, whether the last show sucked, whether they can get friends to come over and chip in for beer and pizza, I don't know what.

The important information to have would be how many PPV customers are diehard regulars. For those fans, break out the spreadsheet and start doing the math.

But for those who buy sometimes, PPVs three weeks apart maybe is too much. OF course, they're still doing Sept 19-Oct 3-Oct 24 next year, so maybe WWE's hands are tied there.

Me? I only buy if I can get some buddies together to come over. I can't justify spending $30 or $40 to watch something at home, alone. So that means usually just Wrestlemania. And, for what it's worth, buying Wrestlemania would only become price-sensitive if it got close to $100. Whether/how much WWE sucks at the moment is a lot bigger factor in whether I can rope friends into coming over to watch.