General "Too many ppvs" complaining / restructure the PPV schedule thread

[worldchamp101]

I agree with MMK 100%. Why should we be concerned with the amount of profit Vince make. We are not his employees. We are fans and we should care about the quality of the PPVs not the quantity.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Actually, it is you who is wrong. WWF made just as much money, and was much more popular in the 80's and 90's when they had only 4 ppv's a year. That was when the WWF was at it's peak. Are you saying the WWF didn't make money in the 80's and early 90's before they expanded to 12 or 16 ppvs a year. They had way more ppv buys back in the day when ppvs mattered. So more ppvs doesnt neccessarily mean more ppv buyrates. Buyrates are the lowest theyve ever been.

Oh, you mean during the biggest boom period in the history of professional wrestling, in a totally different era than we are in now? Feel free to post something relevant in the future. The large number of PPVs certainley didnt seem to hurt during the attitude era, now did it?

See the thing is, it doesnt matter what you or I want, the WWE isnt here for me or you, it is here to make money. PPVs are a constant revenue stream, to curtail them would be utterly foolish. Your argument for the low buyrates may hold water if the tv ratings werent down as well, but they are, so it simply doesnt.

 

[MMK]

I agree with MMK 100%. Why should we be concerned with the amount of profit Vince make. We are not his employees. We are fans and we should care about the quality of the PPVs not the quantity.

Exactly. I like this guy. He's got good taste. lol. But some folks on here seem to think they work for Vince and are more interested in WWE's profit margin. I just want a quality product. And as a fan, that should be our only concern.

 

[gooseholla]

Tag team main events for ppvs? Oh, you mean like every RAW and Smackdown the show before a PPV and the night after a PPV? Yeah... let's do that!

 

[Rampage Bentley]

I don't see why this whole PPV thing is so hard. Seems to me the best solution is to go back to brand specific PPV's.

You have about 6-7 matches on a PPV, and only 3-4 matches per brand. That means only 6-10 guys get on the show per brand. How can you be trying to make new stars, yet PPV spots are limited and going only to already estabished guys. Single branded PPV's will give the Drew McIntyres and Evan Bournes a chance to showcase their talents on the big shows.

It's not going to hurt revenues in the long run. Sure at first going back to single brand PPV's is going to drop in buyrates at first, but once you get a chance to build some guys up through giving them actual programs to work and some decent pushes/tv time you'll have a rich roster to pull from.

On top of that, you'll have a nice 6-8 week build to really flesh out feuds for each program.

I think single branded PPV's are the way to go, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only reason they were stopped was because the first ECW brand PPV they tried bombed.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Exactly. I like this guy. He's got good taste. lol. But some folks on here seem to think they work for Vince and are more interested in WWE's profit margin. I just want a quality product. And as a fan, that should be our only concern.

And so one is led to wonder were this myth has arisen that less PPVs = more quality product? How so, exactly? They correlate in no way. Late 92 through 95 was an utter shitfest for the most part, and yet, hey, they had 4 ppvs a year until INYH was introduced.

No idea were this myth originates that quality of product and number of ppvs has anything to do with each other. Are you all meaning to tell me that the WWE has had a shit product for nearly 20 fucking years now?

 

[blkshp]

I have to agree with NorCal with this thread, but at the end of the day its not about how many PPV's, how many titles, the booking, the writing, the talent (or lack there of, depending on your opinion) or the PG era content: its about fans who've been watching pro wrestling their whole lives and have outgrown the product but refuse to let it go. Hate to sound all Dr. Phil here, but pro wrestling as, over the last 30 years at least been aimed at a younger male audience. In the 80's they were indestructable super heroes, in the mid 90's they were all super bad asses. That appealed directly to all of us at that age because it was tailored to us. I remember when I would watch RAW is WAR during the attitude era, my brother, who would watch wrestling in the 80's wasn't a huge fan because it wasn't about the good guys vs the bad guys; everybody was a shade of grey and constantly shifting from anti hero to full heel (except Stone Cold, until the "invasion" storyline). Now I see the same arguments about todays product, only far worse. I read constant complaints about how John Cena can't wrestle and has only 5 moves (Hulk Hogan is considered one of the greatest EVER and had like 3 moves, seriously!), how Randy Orton is boring and monotone and can't wrestle (despite the fact that when he was a heel, I rarely heard that, and he's monotone because he wants to sound cold blooded...like Matt Hardy? Idk). And it goes on and on, Miz sucks, JoMo is a spot monkey, Sheamus is too pale, Kofi couldn't be jamaican because he never ate jerk chicken...ok I made some of those up. I then hear that everything is watered down (which is true) and predictable. Its predictable because you've been watching the same thing for 15+ years people! Of course its going to get predictable! Add to the fact there are NO off seasons for the talent to rest and the writing crew to get away and think up new stuff, and now the fans have access to storylines ahead of time through dirt sheets, and its wonder why anybody bothers to watch this at all anymore! I know I went WAY off the PPV topic, but I don't see that as the issue at all, its not WWE, they're just appealing to your son/little brother/little Jimmy. Its not TNA/Impact Wrestling, they're desperately trying to quench your attitude era bloodlust, but are woefully unable to pull it off. If you as a fan can't accept this for what it is; don't watch it, just find something else on Monday, Thursday, Friday and every 3rd Sunday for a few years, then check back in, maybe there will be an era you prefer in full swing at that point.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

I think single branded PPV's are the way to go, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only reason they were stopped was because the first ECW brand PPV they tried bombed.

Yurnewhero wrong. The reason they dropped the single branded PPV's, was because some cards of those PPV's sucked. Would you buy a PPV headlined headlined by Ted Dibiase? I know i wouldn't, and guess what many people would do the same so....

 

[RJB1976]

Much to the contrary, you, are wrong.


Pro Wrestling is about making money, always has been, always will be. Not placating you.

More PPVs = more money.

As long as there is profit to be made, PPVs wont, and shouldnt, decrease in number. Thank fuck you aren't running my wrestling company, I would prefer to make money, personally.

You seem to have less business sense then common sense. By your logic, the NFL season should be 50 games, MLB 200 games, NBA and NHL 100 games. They'd make more money that way. More games = more money.

And also you don't understand the concept of saturation of the market. Too many PPVs are cluttering the market. Why should I bother making a PPV Over the Limit any good, when I know that more people are going to buy Wrestlemania. I should focus on Wrestlemania, and know that Over the Limit is meanignless to me, as far as selling the actual PPV to a TV audience.

And hey, if it's all about money, why not have weekly PPV's. You'd make more money. Oh wait, someone tried that already, and it didn't work. That's part of the reason TNA never built a strong national fanbase. Because the only people seeing them on a weekly basis was the folks showing up to the arena.

I'm glad I don't run any backyard fed you might have. You see only $$$$ and not building an actual product. Promoters like you end up black balled in the business. I'm willing to bet you're the type that would book a show, and once you had the gate, you'd skip out and not pay the boys.

 

[Notorious718]

I'm not gonna pretend to be a businessman because I honestly have no idea if PPVs really equal more profit (now that I've read both sides of the argument). If having a PPV every month helps maximize revenue then I don't see that changing anytime soon. From a personal standpoint, I wouldn't mind if they cut the number of PPVs. In all honesty, I actually was a fan of the brand exclusive PPVs with the Big Four making up the joint PPVs. I felt it benefited storylines by making them longer which gave time for development. But that's just my view.

 

[Franchize1990]

You seem to have less business sense then common sense. By your logic, the NFL season should be 50 games, MLB 200 games, NBA and NHL 100 games. They'd make more money that way. More games = more money.

I believe that's actually a big reason why the NFL is going through the lockout right now. The owners want to increase the regular season by a couple games because they want to make more money. So, basically, more games does equal more money just as more PPVs would equal more money.

And also you don't understand the concept of saturation of the market. Too many PPVs are cluttering the market. Why should I bother making a PPV Over the Limit any good, when I know that more people are going to buy Wrestlemania. I should focus on Wrestlemania, and know that Over the Limit is meanignless to me, as far as selling the actual PPV to a TV audience.

I too think there's too many PPVs in the WWE (since both brands are on each card now) but, as long as McMahon is making money off of them, don't expect anything to change. As to why you should attempt to make Over the Limit any good: I think more people are going to buy WrestleMania regardless and you can expect a certain $ amonut from there regardless of how they built the card. The same could be said for the other major PPVs. The x factor of your PPV income relies on how you build the smaller named ones like Over the Limit. The better the card, the more interest you might be able to build up, which in turn generates a little extra money in your pocket.

And hey, if it's all about money, why not have weekly PPV's. You'd make more money. Oh wait, someone tried that already, and it didn't work. That's part of the reason TNA never built a strong national fanbase. Because the only people seeing them on a weekly basis was the folks showing up to the arena.

Weekly PPVs don't work and McMahon knows that. He does feel, however, that monthly PPVs do generate enough money to keep that format going for a few years now. TNA is even starting to adopt a WWE-like PPV schedule because it seems like a formula that works.

Personally, I enjoyed the brand exclusive PPVs back in the day but can understand why they stopped doing it. Although I feel it would put emphasis back on the mid card titles and feuds, not many people are going to pay to watch for those guys. Just like a boxing PPV, people pay for who's fighting in the main event and McMahon knows it's more profitable to have multiple main events once a month.

 

[smackurdown19]

honestly, we all know that wwe or tna for that matter i goin to eliminate havin 12 or more pay per views a year. however like someone said before if they were to pull an wcw and do like a clash of the champions on another major network it could work. either that or go back to where each brand had seperate pay per views, that was good in my opinion.

 

[blkshp]

The NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL can't increase their number of games without player unions signing off on it, which they wouldn't. Pro wrestlers or sports entertainers are independent contractors, whole different ball game

 

[Rampage Bentley]

Yurnewhero wrong. The reason they dropped the single branded PPV's, was because some cards of those PPV's sucked. Would you buy a PPV headlined headlined by Ted Dibiase? I know i wouldn't, and guess what many people would do the same so....

Yes, but it was December to Dismember that actually did it, ECW's roster was too thin to handle single brand PPV's. The higher ups had no problem with RAW or Smackdown's PPV's.

I'm not suggesting Ted Dibiase headline a PPV, where did you pull that from? I suggested one of the perks is featuring some of the lower card guys in lower card matches. For example, a RAW PPV would be headlined by matches such as Cena vs. Punk or Mysterio vs. Miz and the lowercard matches would be the place for your Ted Dibiase's and your Evan Bourne's, that way they get a chance to shine and prove themselves. Maybe one day that could lead to a guy like DiBiase finding his niche and heading to the main event, cause it's sure not gonna happen from him jerking off on Superstars.

 

[JJohns]

You seem to have less business sense then common sense. By your logic, the NFL season should be 50 games, MLB 200 games, NBA and NHL 100 games. They'd make more money that way. More games = more money.

And also you don't understand the concept of saturation of the market. Too many PPVs are cluttering the market. Why should I bother making a PPV Over the Limit any good, when I know that more people are going to buy Wrestlemania. I should focus on Wrestlemania, and know that Over the Limit is meanignless to me, as far as selling the actual PPV to a TV audience.

And hey, if it's all about money, why not have weekly PPV's. You'd make more money. Oh wait, someone tried that already, and it didn't work. That's part of the reason TNA never built a strong national fanbase. Because the only people seeing them on a weekly basis was the folks showing up to the arena.

I'm glad I don't run any backyard fed you might have. You see only $$$$ and not building an actual product. Promoters like you end up black balled in the business. I'm willing to bet you're the type that would book a show, and once you had the gate, you'd skip out and not pay the boys.

RJB, here's some statistics for you.......There are 2430 games played during the MLB Regular Season (162 games per roster), 256 games played during the NFL Regular Season (16 games per roster), 1230 games played during the NHL and NBA Regular Seasons (82 games per roster). Mind you, these numbers have gone up over the years, both because of the number of teams expanding (Until the 1960s, there were only 6 NHL Teams) or because the number of games increased (in 1961, every team played 7 more games per season than they did in 1960). So yeah, they do find ways of increasing revenues.

Now, as far as any wrestling promotion goes, more often than not, the idea is to make money. WWE has found that 13 Pay Per Views topped with 52 weeks worth of Television and 50 weeks worth of Domestic and International House Shows makes them the money that they need not only to put out a quality product (my definition of a quality product is something that doesn't lose money) and make a handsome profit. They hit the break even point on every Pay Per View, and the ones that make the lowest profit, they reformat to try to make more profit.

I hate to say it, but your market saturation argument doesn't really hold water for that same fact. WWE continues to show a profit, they continue to grow. If it was a case for the market being oversaturated, then they would only hit the break even point, or lose money. WWE has marketing guys that I'm pretty sure know what they're doing better than we do.

 

[martymcfly]

I'm kind of mind boggled that people keep comparing wrestling to football or baseball. There is not an adequate way to compare the two, for many reasons, some of which include (and not necessarily limited to):

1. As mentioned by blkshp, wrestlers are independent contractors, wherease sports athletes are unionized.
2. Wrestling goes all year, other sports have seasons.
3. Wreslting has pay per views, other sports do not.
4. Wrestling has soap opera style stories that ideally culminate in matches on pay per views where people want to pay money to see the conclusion. Other sports do not create stories that need an ending.

So to say that the argument of having 14 wrestling pay per views to make money is equivalent to arguing that baseball should have more games to make more profit is completely ludicrous. They are not the same argument at all.

While I agree that there are too many pay per views and I also believe that decreasing the number of WWE pay per views may help in delivering a better overall product, in the end, the only way pay per view numbers are going to go down is when it no longer makes economical sense to keep having them. In other words, smaller pay per views are not going to go away until enough people stop purchasing them or buying tickets to go see them live, and that just does not seem to be in the cards right now. Considering how long the 12-14 PPVs a year formula has been in use, it's probably a safe bet that it is making them the most money that they are not willing to make any changes.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Yes, but it was December to Dismember that actually did it, ECW's roster was too thin to handle single brand PPV's. The higher ups had no problem with RAW or Smackdown's PPV's.

I'm not suggesting Ted Dibiase headline a PPV, where did you pull that from? I suggested one of the perks is featuring some of the lower card guys in lower card matches. For example, a RAW PPV would be headlined by matches such as Cena vs. Punk or Mysterio vs. Miz and the lowercard matches would be the place for your Ted Dibiase's and your Evan Bourne's, that way they get a chance to shine and prove themselves. Maybe one day that could lead to a guy like DiBiase finding his niche and heading to the main event, cause it's sure not gonna happen from him jerking off on Superstars.

I was using Ted Dibiase as an example. Why do you think Smackdown stars appear on Raw and vice versa? Because people want to see the stars of both shows. Look maybe you are right, and your idea would work but ifs your idea is so good don't you think that WWE would have done that by now? If they don't do it the way you suggested, its because there is no way people would buy a PPV with only stars from Smackdown or RAW. Oh and by the way doing it this way wouldn't change the number of PPV's, because you would still have to have a PPV every month for Smackdown or Raw. And what do you do when its time for one of the Big-4 PPV's You get an extra PPV that month?

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

What are your thoughts on having a ppv where neither world title is defended. you could have one or two multi-man matches such as a battle royal too determine a number one contendor for the world titles. have one of these say with all people who have never won a world title. have the focus on the US/IC titles, the tag titles.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you personally think that having a for lack of a better term "mid-card" ppv, which features the talent of up and coming superstars such as daniel bryan, cody rhodes, dibiasie, truth, del rio, sell? will there ever be a pay per view without cena and orton?

Personally i think this would be a great idea, however i do realise that this could be because i am a mostly internet fan. i would love to see the pure wrestling styles that this would entail.

What matches would you love to see?

My Card would be on the lines of:
Rhodes v Christian for the Number One Contendor to the WHC Title
Six Pack Challenge for the Number One Contender for the WWE Title (ft. wade barrett, morrison, mason ryan, jack swagger, del rio, r truth)
Sin Cara and Rey Mysterio v Evan Bourne and Averno in a Ladder Match for the Tag Team Titles
Drew McIntyre v Dolph Ziggler for the US Title
Bryan v Punk for the IC Title
Kaitlyn v Natalya v AJ v Eve v Kelly Kelly v Kharma for the Diva's Title
A Battle Royal for a choice of a shot at either the IC or US Titles (tatsu, dibiasie, kidd, baretta, chavo, masters, riley, ryder)

please dont be too harsh, only new to these forums

Thank god you are not running a wrestling promotion, because if so it would only last one month. I mean wtf are you insane? No wrestling promotion, and i really mean no wrestling promotion would make poeple order a PPV its there is no world title on the line. Yeah i get that the belts are props anyways, but still i would think that you need them to be defended on PPV in a big match.

For satan's sake remember when Brock lesnard was hurt and he had the reclaim his UFC championship against the interim champion do determine the undisputed champion? That was PPV buyrates success, because everybody wanted to see who the real champion was. Imagine if the UFC ppv didn't have that championship match, Dana white would be on welfare righ now.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

You seem to have less business sense then common sense. By your logic, the NFL season should be 50 games, MLB 200 games, NBA and NHL 100 games. They'd make more money that way. More games = more money.

And also you don't understand the concept of saturation of the market. Too many PPVs are cluttering the market. Why should I bother making a PPV Over the Limit any good, when I know that more people are going to buy Wrestlemania. I should focus on Wrestlemania, and know that Over the Limit is meanignless to me, as far as selling the actual PPV to a TV audience.

And hey, if it's all about money, why not have weekly PPV's. You'd make more money. Oh wait, someone tried that already, and it didn't work. That's part of the reason TNA never built a strong national fanbase. Because the only people seeing them on a weekly basis was the folks showing up to the arena.

I'm glad I don't run any backyard fed you might have. You see only $$$$ and not building an actual product. Promoters like you end up black balled in the business. I'm willing to bet you're the type that would book a show, and once you had the gate, you'd skip out and not pay the boys.

You saying they DONT focus more on WM than OTL? Is that were we are going?

Also, im pretty sure the NFL is trying to extend their regular season, are they not? Did the NFL not expand to have a package deal so people could watch any game they want, AND start their own TV Network? Yea, great fucking example dumbass.

If the product was hot enough, and the numbers overall were popping enough, do you really doubt that they WOULD have weekly PPVs? Vince has already said numerous times the number of PPVs will not decrease, and would like to more. Soooo yea. Ill take his buisness sense over yours anyday.

I have no idea what you want to get out of that last paragraph you wrote you build the product to make more money. Wrestling is, and always has been, about making money...

 

[tcapri87]

Here is the Pay Per View schedule I would like to see:
January- Royal Rumble
End of March- Wrestlemania, nice long time to build up fueds
April- Backlash, nice name for pay per view after WM
May- MayDay, I like the name
June- Capitol Punishment, In my opinion an awesome name for pay per view
July- Summerslam, actually have it in the middle of summer
August-Heavy Metal, Any cage match could fit here even though set up for multiple structures I know is difficult
September- Cyber Sunday, still miss it
October- No Turning Back, another pay per view name I like
November- Survivor Series: Bragging Rights, why not combine both
December- Armageddon, appropriately named

I think this schedule has many generic names for pay per views. Also could add TLC in January and move Royal rumble to Feb. Also, this gets rid of the gimmick pay per views which I think WWE is trying to get id of now. I did like Breaking Point though.

 

[tcapri87]

Jan- TLC, early in month, great way to bring in new year
Feb-Early Feb- Royal Rumble (nothing in between RR and WM), still enough time to build up to WM
March- End March- Wrestlemania
April- Backlash- appropriately named
May- May Day: I like this name as a new pay per view
June- King of the Ring- traditional tournament; 1 contender to SS?
July-Summer slam, actually have it in the middle of summer
Aug- Breaking Point, like the name and concept
Sept-Cyber Sunday, good concept
Oct-Heavy Metal- Cage related matches
Nov-Survivor Series: Bragging Right, a little wordy, but I like bragging rights concept, and it was a survivor series match, why not combine the,
Dec- No Turning Back, another name i like that would be good to close out the year

 

[Daniel]

I understand that more PPVs equals more money but from a personal point of view concerned with quality, I would like 8 or 9 PPVs a year. This works out at around one every 6 weeks. I nice chunk of time in which feuds can be properly built and make for better PPV matches and therefore better PPVs in general. My ideal line-up would probably go something like this.

Royal Rumble - Goes without saying. Just a great PPV. The Royal Rumble match will always be one of my favourite gimmick matches.

No Way Out - A cage-themed PPV. Like Lockdown but not every match has to be in a cage because that's a bit much.I chose this over Elimination Chamber because like Hell In A Cell, it devalues the match having it twice in a PPV.

WrestleMania - Obvious choice. WrestleMania will never die. As I haven't chosen Money In The Bank, put the match back in here. I really missed it this year and I think the PPV suffered for it.

Extreme Rules - There hasn't been a bad Extreme Rules yet. Why get rid of it? The gimmick only PPV is a nice contrast to WM rather than Backlash.

The Bash - Just a good, solid PPV. I chose the Bash over others just because I like the design and name of it. No gimmicks and provides a nice lead in to the next huge PPV...

SummerSlam - One of the big ones, only secondary to WrestleMania. It's also my second favourite PPV after WM. I just love the feel of it. Why not make it more special and give it four hours? I think it will happen sooner or later anyway.

Uprising - It will replace Bragging Rights this year. Doesn't sound like a gimmick PPV and is probably for the best. It sounds pretty cool and will be the lead in PPV for the last of the big four...

Survivor Series - There'll always be a place for Survivor Series in my heart. I love the five-on-five matches. I don't know why, I just do.

TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs - It just works. It hasn't had a bad show since being introduced and I love TLC matches.

So there you go, my ideal PPV year. I omitted Money In The Bank because I think it works better at WrestleMania. I'd rather have one briefcase floating around rather than two. I think Night Of Champions was great when they had quite a few championships. But now there are only six. Grudge matches will always be on PPV now, and they simply don't fit in with the idea of NOC. Bragging Rights is also useless now that the brand split means very little.

 

[WWWYKI777]

Oh this is an EASY question

I'd keep every single one of the PPVS in tact (I mean once a month in tact) , but reduce PPV pricing to $15 maybe $20 per PPV show

Then it'd just sell a hell of alot more and result in way more money and more viewers etc

PPV names are fairly irrelevant if theres no gimmick to the PPV , obviously I'd maintain WM Summerslam Rumble SS & then keep Extreme rules , TLC , Hell in a cell , Elimination chamber , Money in the bank etc (Big 4 + gimmick PPVS ftw imo)

 

[KKKKwe]

With WWE deciding that the Smackdown vs Raw name in their game franchise isnt needed WWE has also decided to take out the PPV Bragging Rights. Now after the Summerslam ppv the month of september currently right now has no PPV. With October having a 2 ppv for that month should WWE move one of the october ppvs over to september or should they create an all new PPV

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Oh this is an EASY question

I'd keep every single one of the PPVS in tact (I mean once a month in tact) , but reduce PPV pricing to $15 maybe $20 per PPV show

Then it'd just sell a hell of alot more and result in way more money and more viewers etc

PPV names are fairly irrelevant if theres no gimmick to the PPV , obviously I'd maintain WM Summerslam Rumble SS & then keep Extreme rules , TLC , Hell in a cell , Elimination chamber , Money in the bank etc (Big 4 + gimmick PPVS ftw imo)

Are you insane? WWE would be bankrupt, if they lowered the price of their PPV's. Look i don't have a solution, but if your solution was so simple WWE would have done it by now.