Fewer Pay Per Views = Better Product

[The Brain]

I realize WWE is not going to be cutting any pay per views anytime soon because they obviously want the revenue. My question is do you think having fewer pay per views would create a better product.

There has been a ppv every three weeks since WrestleMania. We didn't find out the main event for the Bash until this past Monday, only six days before the show. With so many ppvs there just isn't enough time to build an exciting show as there used to be. Part of the success of the early ppvs was the weeks or even months of suspense until the big event. I remember looking forward to the ppv report, where new matches would be announced, more than any other part of the show. For example, the SummerSlam main event would be announced in early July. That's almost two months before the show. Every week another match or two would be announced. The anticipation would build for the entire summer. Now some matches are just announced by the commentators during a match almost as an afterthought.

Fewer pay per views would also equal fresher pay per views. It's been discussed how all the current main eventers have worked with each other many times already. That's going to happen when you have fifteen ppvs a year. If they would cut the ppvs to maybe six or seven a year there would be more fresh matches and the events would seem more important.

They don't even have to cut that many. I would like to see WWE return to the 1996 format. Five big events and seven smaller ones. The smaller events had fewer matches, were an hour less, and a cheaper price. It was common for main eventers like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels to sit out these smaller shows. That was ok because we still got our money's worth because of the lower price and it kept their rivalries fresh for bigger shows.

I think WWE should at least eliminate Extreme Rules and Cyber Sunday. With at least one stipulation at nearly every ppv Extreme Rules just seems unnecessary. Cyber Sunday has simply lost it's luster and run it's course. It was a unique idea at first, but after five years voting on the same things every year has gotten stale. No Way Out could probably go too. I think the road to WrestleMania can build up on tv starting right after the Royal Rumble without a ppv in between.

I guess the real challenge would be to keep things fresh for the ppvs in between events considering there are two hours of RAW and SmackDown to factor in every week. Again I know it's not going to happen because of the money involved, but do you think the product would be better with fewer pay per views?

 

[oilergk]

I agree with you on both points. I do think it would make the product better, but I also don't see it happening.

I think it would make the product better just because there would be more time to really build up a feud. It also would make the pay per views that they do have seem like much bigger deals. The only pay per view that really seems like a big deal now is Wrestlemania, and that's just because it's Wrestlemania.

I don't see it happening just because of the fact that they are money makers. There isn't really anyway for me to reflect on this further. WWE is a business that's out to make money just like any other business.

I do disagree with your opinion of Cyber Sunday. I can see where you think that we're voting on the same thing every year, but the bottom line is that we get to vote on something. I like anything that separates one pay per view from the many others.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Pretty sure there are 37 threads devoted to this. At any rate, I kind of agree. Sure it would definitely give more time to build up a feud. But think about this, how long has the HHH Orton feud been going? It is incredibly stale and no amount of PPVs would solve that. I think it all comes down to simply doing a better job at preparing a program. They can have as many PPVs as they want.

 

[Greenlight13]

I completely agree. 3 weeks is too soon. I blame things like extreme rules and new year's revolution and cyber sunday becoming yearly.

They built a program for Judgement Day, and we were told we have to see this to see how things turn out. Then 3 weeks later they put on the same matches (remove Morrison v Shelton and insert crappy Vickie vs Santino match) but with better stipulations. As a fan you have to be thinking... well why did I just watch Judgement Day? Whilst extreme rules doesn't always live up to its name, to me it's more exciting. I'd rather pay to see a ladder match than a one on one that is more than likely going to have a swerve ending.

That's the main thing for me; because there are so many PPV's they don't ever resolve anything at them, especially the main event. On tv to build a feud you get some talking, a tag match against each other, interfering in each other's matches, then they go to PPV where the heel wins with shady tactics, then they come out and brag about their win, the face says you screwed me, they either earn or are given another shot, different kind of shady tactic, and then it's blown off in a big stipulation third PPV.

I'd rather see the guys face off on tv but just build towards it for weeks and then have a higher stakes match on PPV once every couple of months. Then again I guess TV would drag more, week after week of different combinations of tag matches and run-ins and beat-downs that would seemingly never end, so it's tough to escape the one a month format.

Bottom line is I don't pay for PPV's but if I had to I just would skip 2 or 3 at a time unless they gave me a reason to believe it's a "must see" and in this day and age it just never is. I want to pay to see culmination or at least something interesting, I don't want to pay for a 20 minute match the ends with Edge using referee misdirection and a foreign object to pin Jeff Hardy or something only for them to start the same build-up all over again. I swear we used to have more varied match-ups that would build for 1, 2 month tops and then the next feud. Now we have the same 3 guys fighting all year long and it bores me.

 

[Mark0820]

Pretty sure there are 37 threads devoted to this. At any rate, I kind of agree. Sure it would definitely give more time to build up a feud. But think about this, how long has the HHH Orton feud been going? It is incredibly stale and no amount of PPVs would solve that. I think it all comes down to simply doing a better job at preparing a program. They can have as many PPVs as they want.

The HHH/Orton feud is stale because they are wrestling 5-6 times a month on tv. They've been in every kind of gimmick match you can imagine now other than Hell in a Cell. If there were fewer PPVs and the gimmick matches were used properly, the feud wouldn't be stale. There are too many PPVs and the brand extension is hurting as well. The main event level is diluted as all hell.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

I agree, but with the WWE's mentality the smaller PPV's might slightly increase over time. I say keep the Big 4 PPV's, get rid of the rest & utilise Saturday Night's Main Event as the smaller PPV [of course extending the hours].

 

[Cone Stold Steve Austin]

they should get rid of cyber sunday & have a cyber sunday themed RAW once a year

 

[wrestlemania26]

i think they should go back to brand-exclusive ppvs
like this:


Royal Rumble: Tri-branded (Unique for royal rumble match)
No Way Out: Tri-branded (Unique for elimination chambers)
Wrestlemania: Not saying anything else
Backlash: RAW Only
Judgment Day: Smackdown! and ECW Only
Extreme Rules: Tri-branded (Have REAL ECW-style matches)
The Bash: Smackdown! and ECW Only
Night of Champions: Tri-branded (all titles up for grabs)
SummerSlam: Tri-branded
Bring back Unforgiven: RAW Only
No Mercy: Smackdown! and ECW Only
Cyber Sunday: Tri-branded (Fans chose matches)
Survivor Series: Tri-branded w/ elimination matches
Armageddon: RAW Only

With this plan, storylines are better built and more talent is showcased

 

[MyselfTheThird]

I agree with 26... the brand-exclusive PPVs would improve the quality of the product, but it probably wouldn't happen because it would raise concerns that ppl wouldn't buy every PPV. Some might think "Hey, why should I watch a Raw-only PPV when I can just see a tri-branded PPV later on?" Of course, you would get to build more stories and have better cards for the tri-branded PPVs that way, but if there's any risk of WWE losing money (like he did buying raw back... kayfabe, i know), Vince just ain't doin' it.

 

[andrew_vasquez8693]

i doubt they would cut out ppvs but if they did they should cut out cyber sunday and do that as a 3-hour RAW or sumthing. they could also cut out either Extreme Rules or The Bash. there is no need for 2 ppvs in 1 month. the less ppvs, the more buys WWE will get because they will have more time to build up the feuds and more time to make them interesting. in the same time the fans will have time to save up and order these ppvs.

 

[GameOver]

Yes this has been covered countless times already about the amount of shows/PPV's
I'm old school and liked the longer build up,

Saying that i wouldn't want to go back to the early 80's upto WrestleMania 6 when as a young'n in Australia we had to wait 6 months for a PPV video to be released, and little to no mention of what happened inbetween thats the other extreme

Then we got the attitude era, Wrestling shows (decent shows i might add) 3 days a week and PPV's every month but storylines that lasted atleast 3 PPV's and in the case of the Main Eventers Fueds lasted 1yr+

The PPV's/TV Shows were pretty good, fresh and jaw dropping at times, couldn't get enough then

Now with 3 semi entertaining WWE Shows + TNA Snoozefest + PPV's sometimes twice a month not including both TNA and WWE, even the big 4 PPV's are struggling to put on a decent show cause they are just another show with more of the same matches that happen every week,

Half the issue is there's no build up cause every 3 weeks there's a PPV's which ends a storyline within 2 PPV's for the most part.

Lastly could add that the lead up to every PPV's is pretty much the same each month and on each show. the 4 guys involved in the 2 main events get involved in there opponents matches, each show have reverse one on one confrontations, a fatla fourway of some description and a tag match involving all 4 then the PPV. SO PREDICTABLE

PPV's have also for all intensive purposes just become extended RAW/Smackdown/Impact TV shows with few title matches that mean anything.

So yeah go back to 6 per yr maybe, or at the very least make each PPV's mean something.

Scrap Backlash for starters. the idea is dumb, WrestleMania is meant to be the end of the WWE yr and the end of the yr long fueds which obviously it isn't as they have rematches 3-4 weeks later then a draft.

Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, King Of The Ring, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and 1 other
no other are needed. With less PPV's people would be more inclined to order each one rather than ordering the monthly sometimes bi-monthly PPV's that are crap.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The key to making a reduced schedule of PPV's work is to make them must see...

In todays world, WWE like any business cannot expect to make what it once did... in Credit Crunch times $40-$50 or in the UK £15 is too much to spend once every 6 weeks...add to that the time difference, meaning a day off work the following day, and then a PPV costs easily 70 bucks in real terms...

Setanta, a major Sports network has just gone bust... cos they can't get enough people to pay $20 a month for a whole host of sports including our national team football matches, so what chance do Sky and WWE have of making PPV wrestling work here long term? Especially as sites like this post the results as they go, so I don't HAVE to pay to watch a non-live replay to know what happened.

During the "Attitude Era" and previous to it, WWE made money despite NOT charging to watch PPV's in the UK... and in the US they were affordable... they are now inflated prices. You can watch a movie for $15 that lasts the same amount of time, the outcome is also pre-determined of course, but you get nice seats, a big screen, possibly IMAX...

PPV and even subscription to a point is a dying breed in it's current form, many sports that use it are struggling for revenue to the point WWE is allegedly looking into Closed Circuit. If they can take advantage of newer cinema tech... can you imagine watching wrestling on the big screen in THX or Dolby Digital, Maybe even in IMAX or 3D! Then 50 bucks a pop is a viable night out... again...

The brand extension also has to end in this climate... cos In the late 90's RAW had main events of PPV level calibre every week, the whole roster in one place, the shows complimented rather than sold the PPV, each RAW was specificly tailored to make the PPV a must see, and as such revenues came... now, RAW is diluted by the brand extention, you don't have to watch it every week because everyone you like is not on the show...

WWE is not helping itself at all with its current model...

 

[zags]

The thing isn't so much that there are only too many ppvs, but again like I've said many times too many titles. If they keep the amount of titles they do then yes I think they should cut down the amount of ppvs becuase then the matches would give the feeling that they really mean something and we shouldn't have to worry about paying for the same main event in a few weeks. If they cut the titles back and allow the champions to float around the shows the monthly ppvs wouldn't seem as clustered and repetitive.

 

[Nev]

Definitely I agree.

I remember when the brand split was strict, and each brand had their own PPV's..

RAW storylines weeks into a SD!-only PPV were A LOT BETTER because the huge main events would happen on RAW only and creative wasn't dumb enough to hype a match 2 months before the next RAW PPV. Vice versa for Smackdown when a RAW ppv was coming up.

They should still lower the number of PPV's INSTEAD of ending joint-PPV's.

 

[Shadowstorm220]

i think they should go back to brand-exclusive ppvs
like this:


Royal Rumble: Tri-branded (Unique for royal rumble match)
No Way Out: Tri-branded (Unique for elimination chambers)
Wrestlemania: Not saying anything else
Backlash: RAW Only
Judgment Day: Smackdown! and ECW Only
Extreme Rules: Tri-branded (Have REAL ECW-style matches)
The Bash: Smackdown! and ECW Only
Night of Champions: Tri-branded (all titles up for grabs)
SummerSlam: Tri-branded
Bring back Unforgiven: RAW Only
No Mercy: Smackdown! and ECW Only
Cyber Sunday: Tri-branded (Fans chose matches)
Survivor Series: Tri-branded w/ elimination matches
Armageddon: RAW Only

With this plan, storylines are better built and more talent is showcased

While I do agree with some of this, I do not agree with the Brand PPV's. I think WWE should cut back to one PPV a month, NO EXCEPTIONS! Here's my recommended list:

January - Royal Rumble (Core PPV)
February - No Way Out (Elimination Chamber Matches)
March - Wrestlemania (The obvious)
April - Backlash (Revenge Matches or Rematches from WM)
May - Night of Champions (Judgement Day needs to be removed.)
June - Extreme Rules (Not like the recent one, but a TV-14 PPV. It's the only way this name or type of PPV will work. Give it a real Extreme Feeling!)
July - The Bash (Use one of WCW's names, and implement one or two War Games style matches.)
August - Summerslam (Core PPV, end of Summer feuds)
September - Cyber Sunday (Let the fans have their PPV. This was innovative.)
October - No Mercy or Unforgiven (Whichever they choose)
November - Survivor Series (Have two World Title Matches and the rest be Elimination Style. Gives the majority of the roster a PPV to work on.)
December - Armageddon or Unforgiven (Pick your poison here.)

If they don't use The Bash for the July PPV, then King of the Ring would be great. But then they would have to do something with a different WCW PPV if they will use King of the Ring. I would consider SuperBrawl to be used instead of Cyber Sunday because War Games could be used there too.

 

[Slam Master]

I agree totally. When they did "In Your House" I believe there was one a month making it 12 total. The funny thing is, when Shawn was the Champ in 1996, he wrestled 2 dark matches at those events, and he was the champion! I wonder how they explained the champ not being on the show's tv broadcast. There's simply too many which leaves no time to build up any feuds( or feuds that are actually good with intensity and meaning). I also know I'm not gonna drop 40 bucks every 3 weeks to watch the same matches they put on TV week after week. On every show they have the PPV main events on RAW and Smackdown which is ridiculous! Before WM12, did you ever see HBK vs Hart in the weeks leading up to that, I don't think so. They have a lot to change in the PPV department.

 

[Maikeru]

they should get rid of cyber sunday & have a cyber sunday themed RAW once a year

i completely agree with you on this. cyber sunday has sucked since the 2nd year. and they did try to do something like a raw somewhat like it when they did the Raw Roullette a few years back. think it was when E.B. was still in charge but i really cant remember

as for the few ppv each year..they should get rid of backlash or judgement day(same matches), extreme rules make no sense used to be ONE night Stand witch was cool cause it was old school ecw. and cyber sunday. that would cut it to one a month witch is more than enough.

 

[The Prototype]

There are way too many PPVs. It didnt seem like there were so many PPVs last year. But I dont know. They should take some out of the equation like No Mercy or Unforgiven. If they insist on giving so many PPVs, some should be for 1 brand. Not all of them should be for all 3 brands.

 

[Lee]

I am going to say....no. Why? It's quite a simple reason, lets look at Wrestlemania 25, you had seven weeks in between PPVs and my word did it drag. Now imagine you had that space in between every PPV? What would be the need? It wouldn't make a better product allround, it would be a drag and you wouldn't get many midcarders on the show.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yea, Lee got er. Everyone cries out over this shit, but a lot of those folks need to step in this place the rest of the world resides, known as reality.

The WWE can barely give us riveting storylines and feuds to last through the fuckin 3 week build time they have NOW. Wm25 seems like it was NEVER going to come, and I think the fact we had to wait so long for the show made us further infuriated when it sucked asshole. Is that what you want every PPV? to wait forever for a big show, and have it then let you down?

Its fine how it is.

 

[tyler1995blue]

I agree with what you said about the show's being better. I believe that we have had around 8 PPV's already this year. I do like your format though with the 7 smalls and 5 bigs. I feel that it would make shows such as Summerslam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania 10x better.

I do not agree with no PPV's between the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania, that is chances for the title to change hands which ultimately results in a better final match in my personal opinion.

Another way of settling this is to have each show have its own PPV again. Trade months, and have the interbrand ones at the big PPVs.

 

[The Brain]

Yea, Lee got er. Everyone cries out over this shit, but a lot of those folks need to step in this place the rest of the world resides, known as reality.

The WWE can barely give us riveting storylines and feuds to last through the fuckin 3 week build time they have NOW. Wm25 seems like it was NEVER going to come, and I think the fact we had to wait so long for the show made us further infuriated when it sucked asshole. Is that what you want every PPV? to wait forever for a big show, and have it then let you down?

Its fine how it is.

Maybe fewer ppvs isn't the right solution, but as I suggested, going back to the 1996 format would be a better way to go. I do appreciate a longer build. The reason WWE can't give riveting storylines now is because they are all so rushed. Take Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin from Survivor Series 96 for example. Austin came out and challenged Hart at Mind Games in September. They teased the match for the next several weeks until Bret announced he would accept the challenge for Survivor Series in November. By the time Survivor Series hit it became one of the most anticipated matches the WWF ever had in my opinion. If the match took place three weeks after the initial challenge I would have had hardly any time to get excited about it. Mind Games was a smaller show. Austin still appeared to lay the groundwork for the bigger show.

So I think one ppv a month is ok, but seven or eight shorter shows and four or five big ones. Not all the big stars need to wrestle on all the shorter shows. Fans will still get their money's worth if they lower the price for these shows. They will be happy to pay only $25 for a ppv and won't mind not always seeing all the stars as long as they get their monthly ppv fix. I've often wondered if WWE would make more money off a ppv if they had a lower price. A lot more people would buy the ppv for $25. I'm just not sure if there would be enough extra buys would make up for the lower price.

 

[TheGreatSPAMbino]

Yes, if you have less pay per views you will have more time to build up the matches for each pay per view and this will improve the storylines and make the pay per views feel more special so you will probably get some more buys for each.

But unfortunately people are stupid. There is a large number of people who will buy every pay per view no matter how many there are, and in the end this will make way more money. So if i was the wwe i would be pumping out the pay per views just like they are doing. As for single brand pay per views, yes this will allow for more exposure for midcarders but will not draw as much money, pumping out a shit load of tri- branded pay per views will (they could end the brandsplit to help fix this problem but that's another story for another day).

Lastly, as for those who want to have 4, 6 or 8 pay per views a year that is idiotic. That is way to few and would lose so much money. 12 ppvs a year is the perfect system, one a month, simple and straightforward. 4 weeks to build up a ppv is a solid length. This would be my ideal ppv schedule.
Jan- Royal Rumble (30 man rumble match)
Feb- No Way Out (elimination chamber)
Mar- WrestleMania (best show of the year, MITB Ladder Match)
Apr- Backlash (some rematches form wrestlemania, some new rivalries)
May- Extreme Rules (every match is extreme, gimmick matches used to settle lingering feuds after wrestlemania and take newer feuds to the next level)
June- King of the Ring (one night tournament, this needs to comeback it was kickass)
July- Vengeance (Night of Champions is a lame gimmick for a ppv)
Aug- Summerslam (biggest party of the summer, second best show of the year)
Sept- Unforgiven (Scramble match for world title, they were pretty exciting before and they add some interest to the ppv)
Oct- Cyber Sunday (fans vote on the matches)
Nov- Survivor Series (fully interpromotional ppv unless the brandsplit is ended of course, new version of war games match is featured)
Dec- Armageddon (the end is here)