Building a Solid WWE PPV

[Franchize1990]

Going through the forums over the last week or so, I believe that a good group of the people that post on here more often than others often talk about how they aren't really looking forward to a certain pay-per-view due to a couple of matches on the undercard. Reading these posts got me wondering what is the criteria to building a solid, if not good, ppv event? Should the WWE take the UFC/Boxing approach and build up the main event matches as best as they can and throw together a decent midcard that can keep the audience around until the big parts of the show? Or, should they put more attention on the undercard matches and less on the main events because the people that are in the main event can sell the audience themselves? I hope for a good variety of answers as there's probably more than one way to answer the question.

As for me, my belief in order to build a good ppv event is to, first and foremost, do the absolute best job that you can do with your main event storyline(s) that you have going on in your promotion. I think the majority of the fans base whether or not to buy the ppv on what the main event scene looks like going into that event. Take the 2001 Survivor Series as my example. While the show did consist of some solid matches on the undercard like The Dudleys vs The Hardys and Edge vs Test, the majority of the fans went there because of the WWF vs The Alliance Winner Take All Match and left talking about how much fun they had watching that match. If a match that isn't a main event is able to steal then hats off to the people in the ring that did a great job. We'll most likely get to see them in the main event stories sooner or later.

Having said that, the undercard does need a little love too. After looking back at the shows from this year's Elimination Chamber to last year's Extreme Rules, the average number of matches held in recent pay-per-views is a little over 7 matches a show. Take out the normally two main event matches and that leaves 5 matches to be used on the undercard. This is where a company would have to produce matches where there is somewhat of a backstory/build to it. Doesn't have to be main event quality build but a build nonetheless. I think a good number for this would be either 3 or 4 (Two or three title matches and one or two good feuds coming to a head). This would leave room for an impromptu match or two that a company might want to throw together to see how the fans would react.

In conclusion, emphasizing your main events to entice the fans to buy while having some solid undercard matches to introduce to some of those said fans would be my way to build a solid event. Now it's your turn, how would you go about booking a ppv show?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When it comes to some wrestling fans who also happen to frequent internet forums, a lot of them seem to have the same issue I've noticed in some people that're fans of certain movies or movie franchises: you can't please them for a variety of reasons. For some, they're caught up in their own armchair booking fantasies as to what they would do or how they'd incorporate something. Anything that doesn't fit with their vision of what they feel should happen sucks. For some, they want certain guys in certain matches & roles while feeling that this match needs that stipulation or that scene needs to be bloody. For some, and these are the most difficult to please of all, they've already made their minds up to dislike something before they see it. That's not to say that someone isn't justified if they're just generally disinterested in what's going on, of course. Nothing wrong with passionately stating if you don't like what you're seeing either; I simply don't understand why they continue to watch if they're so turned off by the product. If it's simply just to go online to rant & rave, it's a little sad.

There's almost no such thing as "good enough" or something being "high quality" enough to satisfy them. For them, there's no such thing as a "solid" ppv really. If everything that goes down doesn't come off like an epic for the ages, if the show itself is merely just "solid", those fans will label the show a failure. For example, WrestleMania 29 wasn't an event for the ages, I agree with that, but I thought it was a pretty decent show that featured a lot of good, solid wrestling matches. Is "solid" good enough for WrestleMania? Quality's always something that's objective, but not everything that goes on Raw or SmackDown! or at a WWE ppv can set new standards of excellence.

As for how I'd book it, well, it's perfectly natural to want to have all the people you feel should be in the right spots occupying those spots. Take WM XXX's tag team title match as an example. I can't say that I'm overly thrilled about Los Matadores as part of that match. I think if they were replaced with Harper & Rowan, the match would simply look stronger on paper in my opinion. At the end of the day, however, if you're able to deliver a solid undercard with one or two compelling main event matches, then you've put on a good ppv. Maybe not every wrestler will be where some fans think they will be, which I'm sure is the case for each and every ppv, you can't please everybody.

 

[Hem]

To me its the main event that will sell the show because that is what the whole month has been centered around and is the match which will receive the most focus. I think video packages that build up a main event are great because it summarizes the whole feud and makes you want to know how the end will be. I also think the UFC does it right by having a huge build around the main event, like it should be.

The Undercard however also needs the love as mentioned above. If a PPV will have an average of 7 matches and two are the main events then that leaves 5. Of these five 1 should be for the Divas title, Tag Title, IC and US title and then 1 singular non title feud. Theres plenty of room so that all the titles can be defended and if they are not regularly defended then get rid of them as they are simply weights for the champion to carry around.

After the two main events there should be a solid IC title feud which should consist of guys who aren't quite WWEWHC type guys (and as long as there unified there are a lot of guys who wont hold the main belt) like Ziggler, Fandango, RVD, Big E, Etc.,

The tag team I think is doing pretty well and should be focused on to a good extent as well. This means that WWE should always have a good stock of tag teams which they can interchange for the championship and the contender spot.

The US Title should be on the pre-show because it just means that little and it will never quite be to the level it was when guys like Cena held it. The guys feuding for this should be those who are nowhere near main event but deserve to be on the card like Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, or anyone who's become a regular face on Superstars.

If all the titles are included then at least one should change hands at a ppv to add to the fact that anyone can lose their championship. There also has to be a feud for guys like Sheamus who I don't think will be holding the WWEWHC anytime soon but shouldn't be pushed down to a IC title feud. This can be the buffer feud but it has to have a good story going into it and shouldn't just be Christian/Sheamus stuff we've seen lately.

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

All I ask for is a logical progression of feuds, some compelling match ups, and then some decent promotion of the card -- I think this last one has suffered tremendously. We are a little over a week away from WrestleMania 30 and many of the matches have still not been set in stone. I think this is something that ends up hurting the card overall.

 

[JJ15776]

When it comes to some wrestling fans who also happen to frequent internet forums, a lot of them seem to have the same issue I've noticed in some people that're fans of certain movies or movie franchises: you can't please them for a variety of reasons. For some, they're caught up in their own armchair booking fantasies as to what they would do or how they'd incorporate something. Anything that doesn't fit with their vision of what they feel should happen sucks. For some, they want certain guys in certain matches & roles while feeling that this match needs that stipulation or that scene needs to be bloody. For some, and these are the most difficult to please of all, they've already made their minds up to dislike something before they see it. That's not to say that someone isn't justified if they're just generally disinterested in what's going on, of course. Nothing wrong with passionately stating if you don't like what you're seeing either; I simply don't understand why they continue to watch if they're so turned off by the product. If it's simply just to go online to rant & rave, it's a little sad.

There's almost no such thing as "good enough" or something being "high quality" enough to satisfy them. For them, there's no such thing as a "solid" ppv really. If everything that goes down doesn't come off like an epic for the ages, if the show itself is merely just "solid", those fans will label the show a failure. For example, WrestleMania 29 wasn't an event for the ages, I agree with that, but I thought it was a pretty decent show that featured a lot of good, solid wrestling matches. Is "solid" good enough for WrestleMania? Quality's always something that's objective, but not everything that goes on Raw or SmackDown! or at a WWE ppv can set new standards of excellence.

Bingo. I don't understand it either. I think it falls into two different groups of people, which obviously can and do overlap. There's the ones you mentioned, the viewers who complain about everything the WWE does that differs from what they would've done...but the other thing that I don't understand is the people who complain about the general direction of the company(the PG rating, the copious amount of non wrestling segments, etc), things they know aren't going to change. If you don't like the type of product WWE offers, why are you watching? I don't turn on Cartoon Network and complain about all the shows being animated. I don't turn on HBO and complain about all the swearing. I don't turn on ESPN and complain about the commercials. I don't turn on a sitcom and complain about all the jokes and laughter. I don't watch a drama and complain about it being too serious. I don't watch ROH and complain that there's too much wrestling. You know what you're getting when you turn on a WWE show. If don't want to get that, why are you watching? Watch something else that gives you what you want to see, because they're not going to change, and they don't have to change. There's no right or wrong way to run a wrestling company, so you can stop with the "wrestling should be" this or that BS. WWE has a right to run their company however they want and people have a right to watch or not watch. Yeah, you can watch if you don't like it, but why? What do you get out of it? Do you enjoy watching things just so you can cry about how much you didn't like it? That makes no sense.

I think it's pretty clear that PPVs should be built around the main event. That doesn't have to be the title match, though obviously it usually is. So they should be your focus, but beyond that, just build as many good matches as possible. Pick the matches that feature your best performers, that you think will have the most fan interest, and focus on hyping those. I think, on a seven match card, having three matches that people are really looking forward to - the main event and two other matches - is plenty. The other four can be used as filler or to build stories for big names at the next show. If you can get four or five good matches, then you really have something special. There's alsays going to be filler matches, and that's not a bad thing. Having a very good match follow a great match can make the very good match look average by comparison. You need to space them out a little and give the crowd a chance to catch their breath.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

60% of what makes a wrestling PPV good is the build. You can have a show that delivers a series of great matches, but if there isn't a strong build behind them it doesn't matter. Look at two of the strongest WWE PPVs in recent years: Money In The Bank 2011 and WrestleMania 28. Heading into MITB you had the whole Punk angle, and that generated a lot of interest in his match with Cena. We were invested in the storyline with Punk and Cena, and so we got excited for the PPV. The match was a classic, but without that storyline, it wouldn't be the same. Take a hyped up main event that delivered, combine it with some solid matches on the undercard...and that gives us a PPV still worth talking about years later. WrestleMania 28 was the same way, Rock and Cena were two huge stars and their match was built for a year. The match had a big fight feel and it delivered. HHH/Taker had a storyline that had spanned multiple WrestleManias being culminated in what will built as "The End of an Era". It also had a crazy atmosphere and was an amazing match. You had a couple solid matches throughout the rest of the card, and that was enough to create probably the best/most memorable WrestleMania in almost a decade.

So creating a good PPV is all about the build-up and the pay-off.

 

[AegonTargaryen]

When it comes to some wrestling fans who also happen to frequent internet forums, a lot of them seem to have the same issue I've noticed in some people that're fans of certain movies or movie franchises: you can't please them for a variety of reasons. For some, they're caught up in their own armchair booking fantasies as to what they would do or how they'd incorporate something. Anything that doesn't fit with their vision of what they feel should happen sucks. For some, they want certain guys in certain matches & roles while feeling that this match needs that stipulation or that scene needs to be bloody. For some, and these are the most difficult to please of all, they've already made their minds up to dislike something before they see it. That's not to say that someone isn't justified if they're just generally disinterested in what's going on, of course. Nothing wrong with passionately stating if you don't like what you're seeing either; I simply don't understand why they continue to watch if they're so turned off by the product. If it's simply just to go online to rant & rave, it's a little sad.

I'm not sure if someone will disagree or disparage a ppv that is actually good because it doesn't fit their expectational mould, or their worldview or anything else which you mention. For instance, I will not in my wildest dreams be disappointed by Wrestlemania 19, or 26 because they were very good wrestlemanias. But if you mean fans who get affected by kayfabe losses and their heroes not winning , then such people are practically everywhere. Why else would there be a Daniel Bryan movement in the first place? Why would people's boos permeate areanas and ruin the Royal Rumble? I can speak for someone like me. Yeah I don't like the product largely , and yet I rant and rave, but it's not for any of the aforementioned reasons or because the Wrestlemania XXX card does not have my favourite wrestler in the main event. In the case of WM XXX, I want something better for guys like Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio, Christian , etc. But will it happen? No. Is the tag team championship match impressive with teams like Usos, Los Matadores, and Rybaxel? Not to me. Does the Andre the giant memorial battle have any consequence in the grand scheme of things? No. Thus, a largely ruinous wrestlemania XXX card. Brock-Taker sucks due to the build-up. Here are 4 reasons. Surely, most people will agree with more than one reason I proposed, to be disappointed by it. The only people who're not let down by the WM XXX card by now are casual fans.

There's almost no such thing as "good enough" or something being "high quality" enough to satisfy them. For them, there's no such thing as a "solid" ppv really. If everything that goes down doesn't come off like an epic for the ages, if the show itself is merely just "solid", those fans will label the show a failure. For example, WrestleMania 29 wasn't an event for the ages, I agree with that, but I thought it was a pretty decent show that featured a lot of good, solid wrestling matches. Is "solid" good enough for WrestleMania? Quality's always something that's objective, but not everything that goes on Raw or SmackDown! or at a WWE ppv can set new standards of excellence.

The WWE's policies and the creative team's initiative determines which matches will happen and which matches won't. There is nothing wrong with you finding WM 29 a solid show and it largely did feature "solid" matches and was overall a good show , as you claimed. But certainly it was a repetition of the past with Cena and Rock, Brock and HHH. When there's a scope to do something better and yet the WWE won't, passionate and discerning fans will always yearn for more and complain. In the case of WM 29, some would say it should've been a triple threat match with CM Punk, Rock, and John Cena. In the case of WM XXX, The entire card except HHH-Bryan and Orton vs Batista vs ? needs to be reshaped, remoulded and revamped.

As for how I'd book it, well, it's perfectly natural to want to have all the people you feel should be in the right spots occupying those spots. Take WM XXX's tag team title match as an example. I can't say that I'm overly thrilled about Los Matadores as part of that match. I think if they were replaced with Harper & Rowan, the match would simply look stronger on paper in my opinion. At the end of the day, however, if you're able to deliver a solid undercard with one or two compelling main event matches, then you've put on a good ppv. Maybe not every wrestler will be where some fans think they will be, which I'm sure is the case for each and every ppv, you can't please everybody.

You make an excellent point here about Luke Harper/Rowan being there instead of Los Matadores. It won't just look stronger on paper but it'd deliver. It's tragic when Los matadores and Rybaxel compete in a big 4-teams match at WM XXX, whereas a dozen better wrestlers are competing in a futile battle royal. The most baffling thing about it is that stronger teams from not long ago such as Goldust and Cody Rhodes aren't even in this match, but a tag-team like Los Matadores which I can't remember the last time being featured on a WWE ppv is.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm not sure if someone will disagree or disparage a ppv that is actually good because it doesn't fit their expectational mould, or their worldview or anything else which you mention. For instance, I will not in my wildest dreams be disappointed by Wrestlemania 19, or 26 because they were very good wrestlemanias. But if you mean fans who get affected by kayfabe losses and their heroes not winning , then such people are practically everywhere. Why else would there be a Daniel Bryan movement in the first place? Why would people's boos permeate areanas and ruin the Royal Rumble? I can speak for someone like me. Yeah I don't like the product largely , and yet I rant and rave, but it's not for any of the aforementioned reasons or because the Wrestlemania XXX card does not have my favourite wrestler in the main event. In the case of WM XXX, I want something better for guys like Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio, Christian , etc. But will it happen? No. Is the tag team championship match impressive with teams like Usos, Los Matadores, and Rybaxel? Not to me. Does the Andre the giant memorial battle have any consequence in the grand scheme of things? No. Thus, a largely ruinous wrestlemania XXX card. Brock-Taker sucks due to the build-up. Here are 4 reasons. Surely, most people will agree with more than one reason I proposed, to be disappointed by it. The only people who're not let down by the WM XXX card by now are casual fans.

Oh I know that every match on the card isn't as good as it could be but, in all honesty, when hasn't that been the case? I don't believe I've ever seen a wrestling ppv in which every guy that either has the goods or potentially has the goods is placed in a prime spot. That's just simply how it is, how it's always been and how it always will be in every wrestling company. As far as Sheamus, Del Rio & Christian, it's not as if they either haven't had their time in the spotlight.

Sheamus is a 3 time World Champion and while he doesn't have a huge spot at WrestleMania, the fact that they didn't job him out to Batista last night suggests that something is planned for him later on. Sheamus' injury, most likely, forced WWE management to go in a different direction than they may otherwise have. As a result, other guys were getting opportunities that MIGHT otherwise have gone to Sheamus. The show must go on.

As for Del Rio, he's a 4 time World Champion and has been given ample opportunity to get over at the level that a guy who's been pushed as many times and as hard as he has should be. It just hasn't happened. I think the guy's great inside the ring, but he just doesn't connect with fans as a main eventer. When he was on top or in a prime spot, I have no problem and I supported the guy. But, as I said, it's not as though he hasn't had an opportunity; he's had many of them.

As for Christian, I think Christian could've been a main eventer if he was 8 or 10 years younger. Personally, I always felt he was a better overall wrestler than Edge was. One reason why Christian hasn't gotten a great spot at WM this year, and it's a big reason, is due to issues with injuries over the past year to year and a half. Mark Henry's had problems with injuries as well, it happens to some athletes as they get older. Considering that Christian suffered a concussion this past Monday on Raw that might prevent him from competing at WrestleMania XXX altogether, it's a good thing that he isn't involved in something better.

As far as the tag team title scene goes, I personally feel that Harper & Rowan should be included in the match rather than Los Matadores. As for The Usos, personally, I think they're a great babyface tag team with a lot of energy who consistently put on good matches. I agree that the match could be better, but that doesn't mean that the match still can't be good.

As far as only "casual fans" being happy, while I don't agree, let's just say that it's true. Casual fans are the ones who spend the most money. Casual fans are the ones who make up the majority of not only WWE's audience but pro wrestling in general. It's damn near impossible to please the die hard, hardcore fans who've been watching since they were kids and who've pretty much seen it all. All anyone has to do is go on a wrestling internet forum and spend half an hour browsing over various topics of conversation to know that for themselves.

The "main events" for this year's WrestleMania are the title match, Bryan vs. Triple H, Cena vs. Wyatt and Taker vs. Lesnar. In my eyes, the weakest build out of those has been for Taker vs. Lesnar. I'm of the opinion, and that's all it is, that the build would've been more interesting if Taker had been the one portrayed as looking weak. I'm not sure why WWE didn't go that direction. Maybe management knows something I don't, maybe they just made the wrong decision like everyone does at some point. That being said, people still wanna see the match and it can be a strong match. I get that Taker doesn't appeal to everyone, no wrestler does, but one reason why the streak angle continues each year is because it's a significant draw. It's a significant draw because lots of people are entertained by Taker and his matches. Taker makes money for WWE and he's still physically able to go in the ring.

If the four main event matches are strong, the endings satisfy the majority of viewers and the undercard matches are solid enough to keep people entertained, then WrestleMania XXX will be deemed a success. When it's all said & done, that's all any wrestling company can hope for when it comes to putting on a ppv.

 

[TheICChampion]

I'm all for a PPV having only 1 or 2 really hyped-up matches, with some filler, title matches, etc., but when the filler matches end up being boring and/or serving no purpose whatsoever, then it leaves me wondering why they even bothered in the first place. I realize that if a match is boring, the creative has no idea of knowing that until the match is already underway, but what if someone pulls off a 5-star classic and then....nothing? No push, no re-match? I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I'm almost positive it's happened before. Then there are certain guys who are boring, who constantly do the same feuds, the same storylines, the same matches over and over again but still get pushed and/or prominently featured. *CoughCenaandOrtonCough* Look, I know nobody has any idea (as much as they'd like to think they do) how good Wrestlemania is going to be until it's all said and done, but jeez, you'd think they'd spend a little more time building the undercard. No IC title match? Great job, not putting up your so-called 2nd most important title in the company. It took them until last week to add any title matches at all. To me, the more title matches that are on a show, the more special that show is going to be. (Night of Champions doesn't really count because they HAVE to defend their belts, at least in theory)

 

[kadroan]

I'd prefer a pay per view where every feud has long term booking to it. It's no excuse for any feud on a PPV not to have that.

They have three shows, with RAW being three hours and Smackdown featuring less main eventers and longer matches.

If all else fails they really need to take advantage of Main Event.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I would never try to use UFC. It's not at all the same thing.

WWE is closer to a movie or TV series. The PPV is like a movie or series finale. The PPV should have ebs and flows and then really hit you with the main event. You have to have characters people want to see.

Generally the opener should be quick and hot. There should be a comedy match, a brutal match, a divas match, a multi man match, etc. Keep the variety there to keep it interesting. Then deliver the drama in the main event.