Pay Per Views don't feel special anymore

[AegonTargaryen]

Remember a time when a Backlash, Judgement Day or Vengeance felt like a must-see show, much more than even Summerslam feels today, and Summerslam was obviously huge ? When we'd see Taker vs Angle vs Rock at Vengeance, or an Unforgiven in 2002 which was a better show than most Summerslams or Survivor Series's from the last many years.

It's undeniable that most PPVs like Fastlane and Payback feel like an episode of Sunday Night Raw, and as far back as 2014, Mark Madden would call that year's HIAC featuring Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins, Orton and Cena a "Sunday Night Raw" and he was right. And that wasn't even an year with the brand split in effect.

Last year's Smackdown PPVs too, although better than Raw, didn't really have a whole lot to offer, based on their thin roster.

My main complaints for the PPVs not feeling special are threefold:-

1)The Sets all look alike.

I want the good old Unforgiven, Judgement Day, and Armageddon sets back, which were picturesque as fuck, and if you're a fan of WCW, they could have been awesome Halloween Havoc or Bash at the Beach sets as well.

I cannot differentiate between the Payback set from last night and the usual Raw set. It just felt like an episode of Raw. For Example, you had a lot of filler at Unforgiven 2003, but the show on the whole at least had a special vibe to it because of the set. Kane vs Shane McMahon and Goldberg vs HHH is memorable to this day, and I can't say the same for a single match on last night's show. I just can't. Which brings me to

2)Combine the rosters for every PPV, giving 4 quality matches from Raw and 4 from Smackdown, and a Pre-show match if you even have to.

Even back then, if you see the line-up of Judgement Day, Great American Bash and No Mercy on Wikipedia, you'd see that necessarily FOUR out of 8 of the matches don't even seem to belong on a Smackdown, let alone on a PPV. I'm talking about matches like:-
Mordecai squashing Scotty 2 hotty
Chavo vs Jacqueline (how could you put this on a PPV for chrissakes)
Any combination of matches involving Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Heidenreich, Spike Dudley, Nunzio, Charlie Hass, Bob Holly and the like.

RAW wasn't doing that great either with pretty much half the PPVs being undeserved filler matches. If you were smart, you'd rather have a joint PPV like Unforgiven where the card would be:-

HHH vs Randy Orton(Raw)
Chris Jericho vs Christian(Raw)
Shawn Michaels vs Kane(Raw)
Taker vs JBL(SD)
Cena vs Booker T(SD)
Kurt Angle vs Big Show or Eddie Guerrero(SD)

and any combination of Tag Team or Women's matches in a single unified division for each.

The main argument brand split supporters use in favour of a Single brand PPV is that "everyone should get to be on the show, that's how you make stars" .

I'll simply ask you one thing:- Since Bob Holly, Billy Gunn, Charlie Hass, Rico, La Resistance, Tajiri, Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Heidenreich, Rhyno, Tyson Tomko, Stevie Richards, among others all got to be on PPVs in those years, ....how come they never became stars?

Because they were never worthy of being on so many PPVs to begin with, and I haven't even included Nunzio and Spike Dudley and many others in that list.

3)Reduce the number of PPVs to 12, and if you absolutely must, 13. Quality is to be preferred over Quantity.

Let's face it, Half of every Raw and Smackdown PPV will be either trash, or just the same match you've seen dozens of times on free TV. So why not reduce the number of PPVs, let each feud feel special, and battle in matches and rematches ONLY and only on PPVs.

That way, AJ Styles doesn't have to kill time in meaningless subplots featuring James Ellsworth or something, and each month, he can give an awesome match.

I'd much rather see 10 or 12 solid Dual branded PPVs a year than 12 very diluted Single brand ones and the Big Four.

 

[ShinChan]

I'll try to post short and sweet here.

Combining the rosters for every PPV will make brand split totally pointless. Where's the split if you have both brand matches at the same time? I can understand lack of different sets but WWE will prefer something economic over variety especially at this time. I agree about reducing the no. of PPVs. But it isn't happening anytime soon. So, stop watching every PPV and just watch if the build and card looks good enough to you. Saying PPV was like a Raw episode and still continuing to watch PPV isn't a good approach, I guess.

 

[The Life Of Pablo Ren]

PPV's don't feel like PPV's anymore because they really aren't PPV's. Little to no effort goes into building one because they don't need to. You're paying for the network anyway, they don't care if you watch it or not because they're going to have your money for that month regardless. It's a lack of effort more so than anything else and there's really no remedy for that other than... putting in effort. Lowering the number or combining the rosters isn't gonna do anything to help.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

I'll try to post short and sweet here.

Okay.

Combining the rosters for every PPV will make brand split totally pointless.

Not really. Trying to put on a quality 3-hr programme is impossible owing to the brand split, where you don't even have enough stars for your main event, let alone your undercard.

The proof is in the history. If they did, you wouldn't have so many trashy PPVs with garbage filler matches which belonged more on Velocity, as I mentioned in my OP.

Also, they did joint PPVs between 2007-2010 and those were some of the best years in both the brand split history and also PPVs.

Anyone reasonable will agree that a joint WWE PPV from 2007 is better than the trashy Single branded PPVs the WWE put us through between 2003-2007.

And it won't be different this time.

Filler matches. Rematches OF Rematches.

Where's the split if you have both brand matches at the same time?

The same way there was the split between 2007-2010.

I'd much rather have a Backlash where John Cena defends against Shawn Michaels and others, and Batista faces the Undertaker in a rematch, than the trashy single brand Backlashes or Fastlanes or Paybacks we are getting and will be getting for a few years.

I can understand lack of different sets but WWE will prefer something economic over variety especially at this time. I agree about reducing the no. of PPVs. But it isn't happening anytime soon. So, stop watching every PPV and just watch if the build and card looks good enough to you. Saying PPV was like a Raw episode and still continuing to watch PPV isn't a good approach, I guess.

The "If you don't like something and have genuine grievances as a lifelong wrestling fan, stop watching and go away" argument is so stupid that it should by now have been considered a serious offence by the US Law, International Law and every Law, and punishable by death sentence, every time a forum user invoked it.

It's like saying, "you are demanding quality PPVs in a logical form in a thread, but just stop watching. I have nothing original to say".

 

[AegonTargaryen]

PPV's don't feel like PPV's anymore because they really aren't PPV's. Little to no effort goes into building one because they don't need to. You're paying for the network anyway, they don't care if you watch it or not because they're going to have your money for that month regardless. It's a lack of effort more so than anything else and there's really no remedy for that other than... putting in effort. Lowering the number or combining the rosters isn't gonna do anything to help.

Yeah I guess.

They just don't have to make that effort anymore.

They can do whatever they want. Like Mark Madden used to say "Less people watch wrestling than they used to" and "Marks will tune in no matter what" and damn it he was right.

They did put that effort between 2007-2010 at least where I pretty much enjoyed EVERY show.

It seems like every year, it gets worse. I had just begun to enjoy the PPVs last year with Roman Reigns vs AJ Styles and then the brand split.

May be the solution is to just stop tuning in. Watch only Wrestlemania Season.

 

[enviousdominous]

It should be noted that most of us have watched so much prowrestling that it's very easy to get jaded with what they're giving us today. A small part of why PPVs just don't have the spark they used to is likely because we grew up.

I wouldn't want the WWE to change their current format because that could end up being a "chasing the dragon" scenario where, in trying to get the same fix that prowrestling PPVs used to give, we end up mucking up the shows by trying to force them to be more than just fancy prowrestling cards.

 

[ShinChan]

Not really. Trying to put on a quality 3-hr programme is impossible owing to the brand split, where you don't even have enough stars for your main event, let alone your undercard.

Of course, it is. But WWE is in a mode of transition now. WWE is trying to build stars and stars can't be built in short time.

The proof is in the history. If they did, you wouldn't have so many trashy PPVs with garbage filler matches which belonged more on Velocity, as I mentioned in my OP.

I also dislike fillers but you won't see them going away in the near future. Even at Wrestlemania, there are filler matches.

Also, they did joint PPVs between 2007-2010 and those were some of the best years in both the brand split history and also PPVs.

Anyone reasonable will agree that a joint WWE PPV from 2007 is better than the trashy Single branded PPVs the WWE put us through between 2003-2007.

Can't really remember them. But my only problem would be the pointless nature of brand split. Split means everything separate. I won't like to see every PPV being a dual-branded one.

And it won't be different this time.

Filler matches. Rematches OF Rematches.

Well, rematches also aren't going away.

The same way there was the split between 2007-2010.

I'd much rather have a Backlash where John Cena defends against Shawn Michaels and others, and Batista faces the Undertaker in a rematch, than the trashy single brand Backlashes or Fastlanes or Paybacks we are getting and will be getting for a few years.

I agree but John Cena, Shawn Michaels, etc were credible stars. We don't have anyone yet who appears so often. So, you aren't going to get something like that anytime soon. And that's wrong but still it isn't happening.

The "If you don't like something and have genuine grievances as a lifelong wrestling fan, stop watching and go away" argument is so stupid that it should by now have been considered a serious offence by the US Law, International Law and every Law, and punishable by death sentence, every time a forum user invoked it.

It's stupid but I never said so. What I said was that If you don't like anything happening at PPVs then quit watching PPVs. Just see Big 4 PPVs. I never intended to say that If you complain about a certain thing, then you should consider stopping its use. But If you felt that I told you to go away or something then I apologise. It wasn't my intent though.

Also, death sentence might be a too overboard punishment.

It's like saying, "you are demanding quality PPVs in a logical form in a thread, but just stop watching. I have nothing original to say".

The thing is that you accept not liking anything in the PPVs. And I really don't blame you. But what I think is that there's no use of continuing watching it if you don't like what happens in the majority of time.

 

[The Perfect Max]

I can definitely get behind the sets argument. I cannot stand how the sets are so alike anymore. I used to think that there was a good consistency and that satisfied my OCD somewhat, but at the same time, you're completely right. Some of the old sets were absolutely fantastic and iconic. Armageddon used to have absolutely MASSIVE sets! And even then, the annual events used to change their sets up as well. Backlash, Judgment Day etc. had really nice touches each year that differentiated them, but you knew what event you were at.

As far as the content of the event is concerned, last night's event might not have been memorable to you, but I definitely think they absolutely stacked the card. In fact, I think Payback was probably one of the best Raw exclusive pay-per-views since the brand split last year. Then again, Fastlane, for example, was quite honestly terrible. I've never, and I honestly mean never, quit watching a show half way through. But damn I couldn't do it. But anyway, that is all just a matter of opinion I guess, yet I think Payback was a great representative of what Raw has to offer, and they were still missing Miz, Ambrose and Bálor from action. I will be very satisfied if future PPV events are like Payback last night.

I'm not sure I agree with your point about there being too many events either to be honest. A few years ago, absolutely. Christ, I remember one year where there was literally like three PPV events in the space of five weeks, which is just absolutely ridiculous. But nowadays, I don't think it's that much of an issue. There's like, what, five or so weeks between brand exclusive events? Which means about two or three weeks between every event. I think that's a good rate and I look forward to having regular special events, but it's made better because it's a different roster working those events. And then the big four are made even bigger because these brands are brought together.

I don't know. Maybe it's just a different matter of opinion in terms of what a pay-per-view is supposed to achieve.

 

[Alex]

For me I reckon it's the having them every two weeks.

Sure it's for the different brands and different rosters but that's still overexposure.

Why should I care about a feud on Payback or Backlash when the blowoff will most likely be at Money In The Bank, Summerslam etc and the editors can give me a good summary in the video package.

If it turns out a match is exceptionally good I'll check it out but if not I don't see the point in watching it. Unfortunately I don't have as much spare time as I once did so why should I use my precious spare time to watch something that they don't put as much effort into when I can get the highlights in a video package and watch the proper ending at a later point

 

[Snugglebites]

I think there's a few reasons for this.

The Roster - In terms on actual top level stars, there really isn't that many now. People like to go on and on about the likes of Zayn, Owens, Rollins, Ambrose etc... But none of them are top levels guys, and I don't think they will be. All we have right now, in my opinion is Cena, Orton & Lesnar. Mabe HHH as well, if he still counts. Hell, even Reigns could be there.

The fans - Nothing (or most things) just isn't good enough anymore. You mentioned Taker vs Angle vs Rock at Vengeance and how great that was, and I agree. If anything like that happened now, The Shield triple threat at Battleground for example, a lot of people will just complain about how it's being wasted on a smaller PPV, while a few months before/after, they'd complain about the smaller PPVs being pointless.

As already mentioned, having a PPV every 2 or 3 weeks is certainly not helping. Especially when they're named Great Balls of Fire.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

There's an element of full circle or nearly full circle in this... but ultimately what DO these shows actually do? What did they ever do?

Right now you could easily call Backlash/Great...no I refuse to say it... and the like In Your House and be pretty much right.

The issue over the past 10 years is that the PPV market became oversaturated but people became so used to the monthly product that they couldn't reduce this to a more manageable amount... the network sealed that fate as they need 6 hours minimum of "In Your House" to justify a £10/$10 price point a month.

We're now in a situation where even the traditional "big 4" don't often feel "that big" much less the smaller shows - the brand split is a big reason but also PPV doesn't do the same job it once did for us or WWE.

Think back to when it was 2, then 3, then 4 a year... one every 3 months... you still had equivalent events to your Backlash etc... but it was Saturday Night's Main Event and those were the "shop window" events to entice people in to the product via Network TV.

The roster at the time could handle that rotation of shows, using TV to build the feuds through squashes and promos and not over exposing anything. If you're honest King Of The Ring was fine to make it 5... but once IYH started the quality didn't decline so much, as the filler stood out far more than it had.

Every WWF show of the 80's was PACKED with filler... they booked the "quantity" over quality to make each show seem star studded and action packed, when in reality you got a lot of 5 minute squashes on PPV.

Wrestlemania 7 was 14 matches long, and full of matches that wouldn't even main event RAW or Smackdown today. That show was packed with talents who would struggle to get on a modern single brand show but that you saw them so rarely, and that each match was designed for "one moving up, one moving down the ladder" meant it worked.

Davey Boy V Warlord wouldn't even headline an hour today, but then it worked as it was clear Davey was being pushed and Warlord not. Likewise, Perfect and Bossman - awful mismatch that wouldn't make it to a PPV today but then could do so as filler just to have the IC on the show.

Survivor Series was always a good "casual fan" show as in one night you could get a picture of "who's hot and who's not" in the WWF at the time through the eliminations, survivors (until 1990 anyway) and how the show went... You could tell watching in 1990 that Taker was gonna be big, Bret was getting ready for a push, Martel's team were being built up to be disposable heels down the line for Hogan/Warrior and Jake was losing his push... If you liked Survivor Series, you'd stick around and watch more shows...

Original IYH's kept that "one up" method to an extent, you could generally track who was on the way up and down so booking a match made sense... and at most IYH's there was a big debut of some description, with Hakushi at 1 for example and Goldust at 4 but once the Attitude Era had ended there was no more clear purpose for PPV events other than keeping revenue ticking over...

While from an older fan's perspective not being able to "call" the results or easily see who is moving up and down is sometimes more entertaining...eventually it gets to the point of people getting wins for the sake of keeping fans/dirtsheets on their toes...indeed if it's true betting companies can now predict all but one result, then expect more of this and it'll dilute the true idea of PPV even more...leading to more rematches and seeing the same again.

One thing is true of the older PPV's you RARELY saw the same match twice, even in the lower card. Feuds were designed to end at the PPV and then everyone moved to the next one except the very top feuds which might roll over into 2 PPV's and an SNME.

Ultimately, we're right back to where we were in 1995... only now with a pre-show AND post-show... so 5 hours instead of 2. Are we really supposed to believe that they couldn't fit Miz/Balor onto the show? or Gallows/Anderson v Enzo & Cass... the rosters are there to handle it, but WWE want to have these "pre-shows" which is dumb. It didn't work putting people on the dark matches in 1995 and it pisses people off more now to see some guys not even make the PPV itself...where was Ambrose?

Make no mistake they HAVE the rosters... just the set up is 100% wrong... seems to me they've got to decide what they actually want PPV events to do... if it's just content, fine - but if they want that "big event" feel twice a month, they've got to actually start reintroducing that idea of "the win at the event matters, not the rematch on RAW/SD"

To an extent our own perception of what a PPV is has been damaged/changed with all the information on the inner workings that's out there... everyone thinks they can book a show better - everyone thinks x should win not y and it's all to easy now to KNOW who is being pushed rather than letting their win convince you of their worth.

Last night was interesting that they did the "destroy Roman" thing again... either Braun is the new "guy", Roman is having some time off (again? Two?) or they've realised they have to start changing this shit up.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Remember a time when a Backlash, Judgement Day or Vengeance felt like a must-see show,

No, at least not consistently. These have always been "B" shows. Some had more to offer than others but they've generally been secondary. The post Mania PPV also generally has been the biggest blow off of the year.

much more than even Summerslam feels today, and Summerslam was obviously huge ? When we'd see Taker vs Angle vs Rock at Vengeance, or an Unforgiven in 2002 which was a better show than most Summerslams or Survivor Series's from the last many years.

Wrestling meant more when you were younger and it was newer. Are you surprised by this?

My main complaints for the PPVs not feeling special are threefold:-

1)The Sets all look alike.

I want the good old Unforgiven, Judgement Day, and Armageddon sets back, which were picturesque as fuck, and if you're a fan of WCW, they could have been awesome Halloween Havoc or Bash at the Beach sets as well.

I cannot differentiate between the Payback set from last night and the usual Raw set. It just felt like an episode of Raw. For Example, you had a lot of filler at Unforgiven 2003, but the show on the whole at least had a special vibe to it because of the set. Kane vs Shane McMahon and Goldberg vs HHH is memorable to this day, and I can't say the same for a single match on last night's show. I just can't. Which brings me to

Agreed but that costs money.

2)Combine the rosters for every PPV, giving 4 quality matches from Raw and 4 from Smackdown, and a Pre-show match if you even have to.

Even back then, if you see the line-up of Judgement Day, Great American Bash and No Mercy on Wikipedia, you'd see that necessarily FOUR out of 8 of the matches don't even seem to belong on a Smackdown, let alone on a PPV. I'm talking about matches like:-
Mordecai squashing Scotty 2 hotty
Chavo vs Jacqueline (how could you put this on a PPV for chrissakes)
Any combination of matches involving Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Heidenreich, Spike Dudley, Nunzio, Charlie Hass, Bob Holly and the like.

RAW wasn't doing that great either with pretty much half the PPVs being undeserved filler matches. If you were smart, you'd rather have a joint PPV like Unforgiven where the card would be:-

HHH vs Randy Orton(Raw)
Chris Jericho vs Christian(Raw)
Shawn Michaels vs Kane(Raw)
Taker vs JBL(SD)
Cena vs Booker T(SD)
Kurt Angle vs Big Show or Eddie Guerrero(SD)

and any combination of Tag Team or Women's matches in a single unified division for each.

Your basically asking the WWE to make less money to collect the same $9.99 a month. Your asking the bulk of the roster to make less money.

Live gates dollars are real dollars.

The main argument brand split supporters use in favour of a Single brand PPV is that "everyone should get to be on the show, that's how you make stars" .

The best argument is WWE is a business trying to make money.

3)Reduce the number of PPVs to 12, and if you absolutely must, 13. Quality is to be preferred over Quantity.

Vince doesn't care what you want.

 

[Azane]

This was one of the things I was worried about when they started giving PPVs away for nothing on the WWE Network, at 9.99$ a month instead of 30+$ of the old packages, well the old "You get what you paid for" adage is there.

WWE is still selling us PPVs; they're just not as worried about the quality as they use to be. a dud PPV isn't going to plummet their subs to the Network, like a dud PPV in the past meant the buyrate would be terrible.

The In between PPVs are feeling more like Sunday Night Heat than Sunday Night RAW too. I keep seeing Talking segments and promos, and they even are focused more on next ppv in the middle of the current one. The brand split did exactly what I thought it would do, and has dilluted the talent pool. It didnt make stars, Jinders not a star because Vince likes Steroids, he's just a meme for a month. The only person who's ascended since the split was Braun, and he was already set to be pushed, even if the fans didn't accept him. (of course he's having the anti-roman effect now, where he's trying to be a monster heel and getting cheered for it because he keeps almost murdering roman).

The different sets would be nice, but I understand that they're a huge cost with almost no payoff. The people making decisions in WWE are making quarterly financial decisions for short term gain to shareholders, so turning off a few fans for boring ppvs sets doesn't mean much to them, but in a few years those numbers add up.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't really get threads like these as they just come off like a huge contradiction. If you're that unimpressed with the product, why do you continue watching it? Seriously, what's the point of spending your time and money to watch something that you bitch about 90% of the time when you could devote that time and money to something else? It makes me think that the critics aren't nearly as displeased with the product as they claim to be; after all, being generally negative and pessimistic via the internet seems to be the life's blood of internet forums. The constant complaints regarding WWE reminds me more and more of fans booing Cena in that it's not a genuine measurement of either WWE's or Cena's popularity but rather it simply seems to be the traditional thing to do.

I dunno, maybe I'm just not as jaded and hard to please as a lot of others. I don't need every ppv to have a different set, I don't need every single card to be jam packed with potential classics, I don't need my wrestling matches to be chock full of dangerous spots or overly stiff shots to enjoy it. I don't have to have every single match turn out just like I feel that it should, nor that every single match should be won by the wrestler I feel should win it.

I mean, yeah, I've got my criticisms and complaints just like anyone else, but mine are nothing like the constant complaints seemingly coming from the same posters week in and week out. That's great if that's your thing, no skin off my back and I'm sure it's no skin off Vince's as he's the one laughing all the way to the bank with your money each month.

 

[filthyanimalz]

6 quality pay per views a year is better than 12 average ones, there are way too many at the moment and no one really cares about them.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Remember a time when a Backlash, Judgement Day or Vengeance felt like a must-see show, much more than even Summerslam feels today, and Summerslam was obviously huge ? When we'd see Taker vs Angle vs Rock at Vengeance, or an Unforgiven in 2002 which was a better show than most Summerslams or Survivor Series's from the last many years.

It's undeniable that most PPVs like Fastlane and Payback feel like an episode of Sunday Night Raw, and as far back as 2014, Mark Madden would call that year's HIAC featuring Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins, Orton and Cena a "Sunday Night Raw" and he was right. And that wasn't even an year with the brand split in effect.

Last year's Smackdown PPVs too, although better than Raw, didn't really have a whole lot to offer, based on their thin roster.

My main complaints for the PPVs not feeling special are threefold:-

1)The Sets all look alike.

I want the good old Unforgiven, Judgement Day, and Armageddon sets back, which were picturesque as fuck, and if you're a fan of WCW, they could have been awesome Halloween Havoc or Bash at the Beach sets as well.

I cannot differentiate between the Payback set from last night and the usual Raw set. It just felt like an episode of Raw. For Example, you had a lot of filler at Unforgiven 2003, but the show on the whole at least had a special vibe to it because of the set. Kane vs Shane McMahon and Goldberg vs HHH is memorable to this day, and I can't say the same for a single match on last night's show. I just can't. Which brings me to

2)Combine the rosters for every PPV, giving 4 quality matches from Raw and 4 from Smackdown, and a Pre-show match if you even have to.

Even back then, if you see the line-up of Judgement Day, Great American Bash and No Mercy on Wikipedia, you'd see that necessarily FOUR out of 8 of the matches don't even seem to belong on a Smackdown, let alone on a PPV. I'm talking about matches like:-
Mordecai squashing Scotty 2 hotty
Chavo vs Jacqueline (how could you put this on a PPV for chrissakes)
Any combination of matches involving Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Heidenreich, Spike Dudley, Nunzio, Charlie Hass, Bob Holly and the like.

RAW wasn't doing that great either with pretty much half the PPVs being undeserved filler matches. If you were smart, you'd rather have a joint PPV like Unforgiven where the card would be:-

HHH vs Randy Orton(Raw)
Chris Jericho vs Christian(Raw)
Shawn Michaels vs Kane(Raw)
Taker vs JBL(SD)
Cena vs Booker T(SD)
Kurt Angle vs Big Show or Eddie Guerrero(SD)

and any combination of Tag Team or Women's matches in a single unified division for each.

The main argument brand split supporters use in favour of a Single brand PPV is that "everyone should get to be on the show, that's how you make stars" .

I'll simply ask you one thing:- Since Bob Holly, Billy Gunn, Charlie Hass, Rico, La Resistance, Tajiri, Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Heidenreich, Rhyno, Tyson Tomko, Stevie Richards, among others all got to be on PPVs in those years, ....how come they never became stars?

Because they were never worthy of being on so many PPVs to begin with, and I haven't even included Nunzio and Spike Dudley and many others in that list.

3)Reduce the number of PPVs to 12, and if you absolutely must, 13. Quality is to be preferred over Quantity.

Let's face it, Half of every Raw and Smackdown PPV will be either trash, or just the same match you've seen dozens of times on free TV. So why not reduce the number of PPVs, let each feud feel special, and battle in matches and rematches ONLY and only on PPVs.

That way, AJ Styles doesn't have to kill time in meaningless subplots featuring James Ellsworth or something, and each month, he can give an awesome match.

I'd much rather see 10 or 12 solid Dual branded PPVs a year than 12 very diluted Single brand ones and the Big Four.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I am glad that I only pay for PPVs by subscribing to the Network, so I watch them, since I pay the same whether I watch the actual PPV or not.

PPVs these days are rarely worth what we used to pay for them. However, maybe this is the problem. Since we are paying less for PPVs, and there are more of them to fill Network schedules, they put less into each PPV (which is where I agree with you on point 3).

As for having mixed brand PPVs, I will go one further. I have always felt that they should not only have Raw and SD matches, but a couple of NXT matches as well, to help promote NXT and give wider coverage to guys or girls that they plan to bring up to the main roster (eg. I wouldn't have minded EC or Wrestlemania having Shinskue Nakamura v Bobby Rude for the NXT Title, since it would give Shinsuke a bit of publicity before he debuts on the main roster).

 

[d_henderson1810]

I can definitely get behind the sets argument. I cannot stand how the sets are so alike anymore. I used to think that there was a good consistency and that satisfied my OCD somewhat, but at the same time, you're completely right. Some of the old sets were absolutely fantastic and iconic. Armageddon used to have absolutely MASSIVE sets! And even then, the annual events used to change their sets up as well. Backlash, Judgment Day etc. had really nice touches each year that differentiated them, but you knew what event you were at.

As far as the content of the event is concerned, last night's event might not have been memorable to you, but I definitely think they absolutely stacked the card. In fact, I think Payback was probably one of the best Raw exclusive pay-per-views since the brand split last year. Then again, Fastlane, for example, was quite honestly terrible. I've never, and I honestly mean never, quit watching a show half way through. But damn I couldn't do it. But anyway, that is all just a matter of opinion I guess, yet I think Payback was a great representative of what Raw has to offer, and they were still missing Miz, Ambrose and Bálor from action. I will be very satisfied if future PPV events are like Payback last night.

I'm not sure I agree with your point about there being too many events either to be honest. A few years ago, absolutely. Christ, I remember one year where there was literally like three PPV events in the space of five weeks, which is just absolutely ridiculous. But nowadays, I don't think it's that much of an issue. There's like, what, five or so weeks between brand exclusive events? Which means about two or three weeks between every event. I think that's a good rate and I look forward to having regular special events, but it's made better because it's a different roster working those events. And then the big four are made even bigger because these brands are brought together.

I don't know. Maybe it's just a different matter of opinion in terms of what a pay-per-view is supposed to achieve.

I heard the reason for this is to cut costs. By having generic sets, it costs them less.

But I used to love the different sets. The "ladders, tables and chairs" in the entrance way of a TLC PPV. "Armageddon" used to have the stage look like a scene after a nuclear war etc. I loved especially when there were hardcore matches, and they went onto stage and used the props as weapons.

This is why I hang out for Wrestlemania, especially outdoor Wrestlemanias, (like this year). Because the set and whole arena looks completely different from any other that year. You look and you see it is a Wrestlemania.

I read an article about Kevin Dunn. It mentioned a lot of the criticisms of him, but one thing they credited him with was that he used to plan, design and was involved with every part of the arena set-up, including the entrances. There has been a lot of criticism of Dunn over the years, and rightly so, but I can't remember anyone ever bagging the PPV sets or arena designs.

I really miss the differing PPV sets, which distinguished one over the other.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Remember a time when a Backlash, Judgement Day or Vengeance felt like a must-see show

Nope. Considering they never felt that way to me. No show other than King Of The Ring, Money In The Bank or Night Of Champions ever felt like as big of a deal as the original Big 4. I honestly hated brands like Unforgiven and Judgment Day. What set them apart from each other? NOTHING! Not a single thing.

It's undeniable that most PPVs like Fastlane and Payback feel like an episode of Sunday Night Raw, and as far back as 2014, Mark Madden would call that year's HIAC featuring Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins, Orton and Cena a "Sunday Night Raw" and he was right. And that wasn't even an year with the brand split in effect.

Some do come off as "Sunday Night Raw" but there have been a number of good PPV events since the Network launch and also since the brand split. As far as Hell In A Cell 2014 is concerned, I wouldn't even call that "Sunday Night Raw". That was one of the worst PPV events in WWE history. It's down there with December To Dismember for me.

Last year's Smackdown PPVs too, although better than Raw, didn't really have a whole lot to offer, based on their thin roster.

Disagree. The current PPV format gets more people on the card. It's more special when you HAVE to see a Smackdown PPV in order to see AJ Styles. You HAVE to see a Raw PPV in order to see Seth Rollins, and so forth. Then the Big 4 become all the more of a big deal since that is where both brands come together. More fun variety for the fans who watch, and more money for WWE to make on the fans in attendance since there are several months with two PPV events. Everyone wins. Well, apparently everyone except those who are whining despite watching weekly.

The Sets all look alike.

This one I'll give you. Sure, seeing some more unique sets could be cool. Have to keep in mind though that it saves WWE money to not do as many unique sets. One for Raw, one for Smackdown, and one for NXT suffice unless it's something massive like Wrestlemania or Summerslam. It's not that big of a deal to me.

I want the good old Unforgiven, Judgement Day, and Armageddon sets back, which were picturesque as fuck, and if you're a fan of WCW, they could have been awesome Halloween Havoc or Bash at the Beach sets as well.

Like I said, it's not that big of a deal. A Bash At The Beach set would be cool but I can enjoy a summer PPV event perfectly fine without a beach theme in appearance.

I cannot differentiate between the Payback set from last night and the usual Raw set.

So you'd rather have PPV's that you cannot differentiate? That's a whole lot worse than similar entrance area sets. I'd rather the actual match cards be what sets the shows apart and gimmicks for the PPV itself.

Combine the rosters for every PPV, giving 4 quality matches from Raw and 4 from Smackdown, and a Pre-show match if you even have to.

No this is a bad idea. If you must watch a blue brand to see the guys FROM the blue brand then odds are you might be more likely to see Smackdown's Backlash in May as opposed to if they used your integration idea then it would be virtually the same card we got at Payback minus one or two match changes. All the rest would be Payback rematches. No thanks. Integrating both rosters into every PPV was a bad idea then and it would be a bad idea now. WWE makes more money if there are more shows for fans to attend.

If you were smart, you'd rather have a joint PPV like Unforgiven where the card would be:-

HHH vs Randy Orton(Raw)
Chris Jericho vs Christian(Raw)
Shawn Michaels vs Kane(Raw)
Taker vs JBL(SD)
Cena vs Booker T(SD)
Kurt Angle vs Big Show or Eddie Guerrero(SD)

and any combination of Tag Team or Women's matches in a single unified division for each.

It's a good Summerslam or Wrestlemania card, but it should not be done on the smaller shows. The Raw PPV's and Smackdown PPV's serve an important purpose. Putting everyone onto one dual-branded PPV card monthly is NOT a good idea. Unifying titles at this point would be even worse. Look, the WWE is in this to make money. Period. End of statement. Why would they risk losing money by forcing everyone into one PPV event when they could make twice as much money that PPV cycle by doing a red show and a blue show? The fans who can make it to the red show but not the blue show might still want to see tag team action. The fans who can make it to the blue show but not the red show might still want to see a Women's Championship match. Don't unify the divisions. The title structure and the PPV structure allows WWE to make more money while more fans have fun at more events. That's more important than a smaller group of fans trying to remove filler from the smaller PPV events. Filler is necessary. I'd rather see midcarders and guys further down the card make a PPV instead of seeing the same matches over and over again from both shows. We need variety even if it's a monster like Strowman squashing a jobber who hasn't been on PPV since Wrestlemania's Andre Battle Royal, it's something different that we didn't see the previous month.

The main argument brand split supporters use in favour of a Single brand PPV is that "everyone should get to be on the show, that's how you make stars" .

It is. Otherwise you risk boring the fans with overexposure to the same matches over and over again. This PPV structure gives us some more variety.

I'll simply ask you one thing:- Since Bob Holly, Billy Gunn, Charlie Hass, Rico, La Resistance, Tajiri, Kenzo Suzuki, Luther Reigns, Heidenreich, Rhyno, Tyson Tomko, Stevie Richards, among others all got to be on PPVs in those years, ....how come they never became stars?

Because they were never going to become stars. Not on the level of Cena/Orton/Batista/Edge anyway. There is a midcard for a reason. Not everyone makes it to the top. With that being said there is no harm in having the midcarders on the card too in order to add variety.

Reduce the number of PPVs to 12, and if you absolutely must, 13. Quality is to be preferred over Quantity.

That's not going to happen. Remember that thing I said about how WWE has a goal of making money? They will fail at their main goal if they do this. More events equals more money, provided they make the fans want to come which they have so far. I'd want to see a Big 6 (original 4, Money In The Bank, Night Of Champions) alongside 3 Raw shows and 3 Smackdown shows to make it a 12 event calendar myself, but I don't work for the WWE. They have a better idea of how they will make a profit than I do. Besides, the current structure is a step in the right direction. The PPV format is much better than it was a year ago and arguably the best it's been since, ironically enough, the end of the original brand split.

Let's face it, Half of every Raw and Smackdown PPV will be either trash, or just the same match you've seen dozens of times on free TV. So why not reduce the number of PPVs, let each feud feel special, and battle in matches and rematches ONLY and only on PPVs.

I hear whining. If you know that half the PPV's will be "trash" then why watch? If a card looks good to you then watch it. If not then wait for other posters who did watch to share their thoughts and go check out the content they recommended. Every time I review a show I point out what I think people should see if they missed it. Others do as well. Perhaps that might save you some time. WWE won't reduce their events (in other words the things that make them more money) just because fans from a smaller portion of the fanbase whine about there being too much filler. Watch what you want to watch, skip the rest. The majority like it so it's staying as it is for the foreseeable future.

That way, AJ Styles doesn't have to kill time in meaningless subplots featuring James Ellsworth or something, and each month, he can give an awesome match.

Seriously? You're still not over Ellsworth? It's called the fast-forward button. Just skip him. I skip Big Show. It's not that hard. You can do it too for Ellsworth. Trust me, it spares you a ton of frustration. Newsflash, you DON'T have to watch things you don't like. Just thought I'd pass on that groundbreaking little hint to you. It's a secret to everyone. Not really. Just tossing out a Zelda reference in that last sentence.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

The fact that you are listening to an idiot like Mark Madden tells me all i need to know about this post.

Secondly I like the B Shows are Brand specific because when they got together for the Big 4 it makes them even more special.

Thirdly and lastly if you are paying for the WWE Network you get to see them for next to nothing. I think that's better than having to pay $40 for those B Shows.

 

[Greg4WWE]

PPV's to me haven't felt as special since the days of using jobbers on shows has ended. When Raw and all that started, you had to have big matches to keep interest. Basically those same people fight on the PPV isn't going to make the PPV special when you see them fight every week on Raw or Smackdown.
It's probably why most have moved to WWE Network, no one is going to pay 60 bucks anymore for matches you see weekly on cable.
You occasionally get matches you wouldn't on free tv. Rock vs Cena. Rock vs Hogan.. etc. But yeah, all in all the days of PPVs being special IMO are dead.
They aren't even called PPV's anymore haha.

 

[Eyebrows]

Having every single card stacked like the Unforgiven card you've posted burns the crowd out before the end. There's a reason La Resistance vs Tajiri & Rhyno is positioned between Michaels/Kane and HHH/Orton at Unforgiven 04.

In 04/05 they didn't have a great pool of talent to draw from like they had when WCW and ECW were still active. There was nobody established they could call in, so they had to rely on those sent up from OVW or whatever development they had at the time. Some of them worked, some of them didn't. I mean, Tajiri and Rhino? Whats wrong with them getting on a card in 03/04? They'd been pretty big and well-respected names. I remember Haas and Rico being fairly over as far as lower-card comedy acts go.

Now they have the chance again, to draw from Ring of Honor, or TNA, or anywhere really. There's guys who could have been made more of after coming up from NXT. It's the booking sometimes that hasn't let guys like Breeze down to the point that them being on PPV feels like filler. The star power is there and the roster depth is there if they wanted to draw from NXT for them to have single brand shows.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I am glad that I only pay for PPVs by subscribing to the Network, so I watch them, since I pay the same whether I watch the actual PPV or not.

PPVs these days are rarely worth what we used to pay for them. However, maybe this is the problem. Since we are paying less for PPVs, and there are more of them to fill Network schedules, they put less into each PPV (which is where I agree with you on point 3).

As for having mixed brand PPVs, I will go one further. I have always felt that they should not only have Raw and SD matches, but a couple of NXT matches as well, to help promote NXT and give wider coverage to guys or girls that they plan to bring up to the main roster (eg. I wouldn't have minded EC or Wrestlemania having Shinskue Nakamura v Bobby Rude for the NXT Title, since it would give Shinsuke a bit of publicity before he debuts on the main roster).

I supposed, going back to my uni/marketing mix then the role has shifted.. in the 80's PPV was the major "breadwinner" for large sales figures... getting 80k into a stadium, all buying T-Shirts was the goal...

Now the PPV's are in effect the loss-leaders just like a 10p tin of beans at the front of the store (3p when I learned this) they make a huge loss on that product, knowing they're likely to make money on what else you buy... in WWE's case they give you the free month... even Wrestlemania... but they know if you want to it's easily avaiable free anyway... for every 1 person who cancels and streams for free, 2 probably pay the $9.99.