*MERGED* - The # of PPV's WWE Puts On

[JamJam]

I don't know if there's been a thread about this, so here goes nothing.

I think that the WWE would benefit greatly from having 6 PPV's a year and probably some 'supershows' that will make up the year they have. Feuds would have more time to build up which is always great. Plus, since the build will be better, don't you think buyrates will go up and that'll bring in even more money. Plus, by having those supershows on free TV, that expands the WWE even more, even if they are a global phenomenon. Hell, this could could work for TNA as well.

The PPV's I'd keep would be the four big ones: Summerslam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, and probably Backlash, and the sixth one is really anything the WWE wants to highlight, probably Night of Champions or Elimination Chamber, since they both have a pretty good concept. Not sayin' that they should put them in that order though.

So any thoughts?

 

[Jerichoholic8894]

Great thread, I 100% agree, it's a shame Vince would never consider that becasue of the money he draws

I think they should have 1 every 2 months;
January- Royal Rumble
March- WrestleMania
May- Elimination Chamber (Contender matches for SummerSlam)
July- SummerSlam
September- Night of Champions
November- Survivor Series

 

[The massive hulk]

If WWE had six PPV's here would be the six I would want.

Last Sunday of Janurary Royal Rumble

Last Sunday of March/First sunday of April Wrestlemania

Last Sunday of May bring back Bragging Rights

First Sunday of August Summerslam

First Sunday of October Bring back Unforgiven reason why Championship Scramble matches

Last Sunday of November Survivor Series

 

[bk555]

Good idea, but part of reason why it wont happen is because WWE creative has no capacity to plan ahead whatsoever. Part of it isnt their fault, its just vince and his moody attitudes. Sometimes he feels one thing and hates it 5 seconds later.

WWE needs events like the elimination chamber in their PPV lineup because they are incapable of making up their mind. I do think they realize that scrapping useless PPV's will mean more money but they feel like they are not capable of doing it because things are always changing.

 

[crippler]

I somewhat even think 6 is too many maybe go with 5 it would be more than enough. The five I would go with is:

Royal Rumble January

Wrestlemania late March/ Early April

King of the Ring June (bring back one of the most missed PPV but only if it has the Tornament in it not just the finals at least 3 rounds) winner earns a SummerSlam title match

SummerSlam August

Survivor Series November (with the traditional 5vs 5 elimination matches and only 1 or 2 matches that are for WWE or/and WHC but the rest are the elimination matches)

No need for Braggin Rights since raw stars face Smackdown stars on Raw and Smackdown. Personally I don't like gimmick match PPV so I wouldn't want Elimination chamber. As far as Unforgiven the reason is for the Champonship Scramble you could have that at Survivor Series or Summer Slam.

 

[Jerichoholic8894]

I said Elimination Chamber in May for shot at SS, but Let me swap that for King of the Ring, winner gets Undisputed Title match at SummerSlam (With the 6 PPV's i'd Unify all titles)

 

[CoadyCoates]

I'm going to ask you a question...
If your boss came up to you, and said, "We're going to have you work the same amount of days this year, however, we’re only going to pay you for half of them..." how would you feel about that? I'm guessing not so well, and that's really what you're asking the WWE to do here. Let's take out the big 4, and look at the other 8 ppvs. Say they are all mediocre at best, with little to no build. The buy rates come in, and they average about, 75,000 buys per. Since I'm low balling here, I'll take the "standard definition" price point at $45.

75,000 X $45 = $3,375,000 per pay-per-view

You multiply that number by 8:

$3,375,000 X 8 = $27,000,000

Is the WWE really going to say, BYE-BYE to that kind of money? Better yet, are you? Keep in mind these are estimates, and thus the actually money they're losing out on is greater or lesser than what I have here, but I think we can all agree, it's a loss; a substantial amount nonetheless.

With that said, I would like to see it done. This would certainly give us time as viewers to actually invest in the storylines, and actually make us care about what's taking place in the ring. One of the great things about WrestleMania is that it’s the one ppv that actually gets the time for some build, to make it into an event worth our money. Another piece of this puzzle is the illegal streaming of these ppvs. There's no guarantee with less ppvs and a lower price point, that MORE people would actually PURCHASE the ppvs, in fact the WWE would have to double the price to make up for what it would lose. I'm sure they've discussed the idea of "less is more" but with increased pirating, the 12 ppvs is not only necessary, it's VITAL for their survival.
The WWE knows what it’s doing. The old adage, "If it aint broke..." comes to mind here, and when you're a multi-million dollar global corporation, there's just no way you can turn away that kind of profit.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

In the 90's when Vince initially decided to start the monthly IYH PPVs, he knew the buy rate per PPV would drop, but the fact that they run a monthly PPV would generate more revenue overall. That's why they did it in the first place. So sure their buy rates would increase, but in the end they'll be with less revenue.

If he needs to cut costs, he could start by trimming the fat on the roster. They have way too much talent, so the end up with people who aren't being used on TV.

Now if they really want to increase buy rates of the PPVs, drop the cost $20 don't know about you guys, for the average mediocre WWE PPV, I can't justify wasting $50+ on it. I can justify spending $30 to watch Cena hulk up and overcome the odds (beating The Miz again) a lot more than I can dropping $50.

 

[Pedigree1]

Theres one thing that wont happen!! No way does WWE drop the ppvs to six a year especially when money is to be had. I agree 45 dollars is a bit much to pay for a ppv that is lackluster. When they had Bragging rights i actually enjoyed that but that wasnt a real popular PPV from what i hear.

Eight PPVs would be perfect. Give the writers time to develop a story the proper way and actually the WWE audience could look forward to the ppv with the buildup! I would have the story buildup a month prior to the PPV make us want to order the ppv just to see the stars go at it. God i am not making any sense i apologize its been a hard week for me!!

 

[Cats Pajamas]

Part of it isnt [WWE Creative's] fault, its just vince and his moody attitudes. Sometimes he feels one thing and hates it 5 seconds later.

A common ailment among all of us; from what I've seen it's usually triggered by face turns...

I'm not completely fond with the current format of PPVs and tend to agree that they have a couple dippy shows per year:

Bragging Rights: What's the payoff here? Raw vs Smackdown sounds good, but do any of them end up bragging afterwards? If they do, who gives a damn?
Hell in a Cell: I could run my piss flaps all day about this one, but I won't. To put it briefly, I think there should be a storyline connection, not just automatically be a match like this once a year.
Over The Limit: It left only a few weeks between the previous PPV and the one after it. Feuds in this PPV were built in too short a time or if ended here left little time to build to the next PPV.

I don't know how many that leaves per year, but I have a feeling they could squeeze the others in through a calender year and for this particular viewer it would make for more compelling television.

I'm no economist so I don't have a clue what it would do to WWE financially, but I don't spend money on PPVs anyway. WWE pay-per-views compete with The Simpsons on Sunday nights and that's just not a fight Mr. McMahon will ever win to me, even if they were free (*cough* streams *cough*). Best regards, wrestling fans.

 

[Azane]

less PPVs are better for the fans, but worse for business.

It's kind of a fundamental, the buy rates don't increase significantly from less ppvs a year, where as if a ppv makes any positive money at all, it's a success business wise.

In a world where the money wasn't the issue, we'd see them less often, but right now more ppvs is more profitable.

 

[dakikko049]

It's a nice idea and one that I would like to see but the WWE would probably get more money the way they're doing it now. Also with fewer PPVs it would be harder to get some guys chances at PPVs.

 

[Mr.Fortuna]

I feel there should be the big 5 PPV`s throughout the year.

Royal Rumble- Jan
Wrestlemania- Early April
King of the Ring- June
SummerSlam- August
Survivor Series- Nov

Although having a monthly super card or secondary cards doesnt really hurt anyways. I feel they could be showcased for free on the WWE Channel or become i-PPVs, being charged at a discounted price. They should do away with the gimmick events and go back to standard named events.

Feb- No Way Out
April- BackLash
May- Over The Limit
July- Vengeance
Sep- Unforgiven
Oct- Badd Blood
Dec- Last Rites- My creation!!!

So the WWE fan gets their supercard fix monthly and wouldn`t mind investing in the other big 5 events.

 

[PlayTheGame]

I remember seeing an Eric Bischoff interview a little while back on some WWE-WCW dvd in which he explained how when he kept adding PPV's to the WCW calendar, WWE followed suit in order to compete. Eventually, both promotions reached roughly 12 a year, obviously about 1 per month (which is currently what the WWE roughly has in place now). But Bischoff stated that many people were skeptical of this business move. He said that although the skeptics ackowledged the possibility that it would increase revenue for the promotion, they seriously wondered if it would be detrimental to the quality of the actual creative product. In other words, people thought that having so many PPV's per year would devalue feuds and PPV matches, as they would have to get thrown together for every month. Back when there were only 4 PPV's per year, feuds could build up for months to finally culminate in a final PPV match. They believed that with this new system, the actual product quality would be hurt with all of the PPV's they'd have to work around. Obviously it's a financial success to this day for the WWE, but it begs the question: does the high number of PPV's hurt the actual WWE product?

Now, remember, we're not talking about income. Obviously it helps them in that department and is good for them in that aspect. But in terms of the actual quality of the product, namely the creative side of things, does having so many PPV's (where some less-than-spectacular feuds are thrown together just to fill PPV cards) hurt the WWE product? Would the creative product be stronger if it didn't have to bend around so many PPV's? That's the question.

Here's my take on it: I think (hypothetically, of course, since it won't happen) a slight PPV scale-back would be good for the WWE creatively in order to lessen the haste in which they slap together big feuds. It'd also give the WWE a little more time to focus on midcard/tag division feuds, as they've been neglected since the Attitude Era, basically when this new PPV system started, in favor of just focusing on the bigger feuds which equaled PPV dollars. With less PPV's to worry about, the WWE could maybe focus on these lesser feuds without having to worry about them culminating in a PPV match. Then maybe these midcarders would get more exposure and get over, similar to the strong midcard that the Attitude Era had (those guys were heavily involved on the shows, and they didn't always get PPV matches). So, I think the WWE creative product would benefit slightly from a cutback in PPV's. Feuds could mean a little more, as would the PPV matches in which they culminate, and the shows would mean more too- instead of just being a means to an end to set up PPV's, we could see more culiminations happen on the weekly shows.

However, I know this idea would never happen (and for good reason), as the WWE's main focus is to make money, not to have the best possible product they can. Thus, having a lot of PPV's makes the most sense business-wise, even if it can be argued that it may help out the creative product if the number were to be scaled back just a bit. More PPV's means more revenue, so they don't mind the system/the creative product as it is, because it's working. And since it's not broken, they won' fix it. That was just my hypothetical take on it, as I do believe that with a slightly less number of PPV's, the actual WWE product would benefit to some degree.

What do you think?

 

[Headman]

If the WWE were losing money on these shows and no one was getting paid, they would cut the number of shows. As it stands now, while they're not doing the huge buys they wan to do they're still making more money than if they weren't doing them at all. I don't think you're going to see too many of the wrestlers jump on the "give up your ppv check" bandwagon either.

 

[AwesomeRko]

I would comrpomise and go for eight as there are a few events like Caoitol Punishment and Over the Limit that are quite simply and obviously filler, the buy-rates can not at all be high so WWE could afford to cut them. My line-up would be:

Jan: Royal Rumble
Feb: Elimination Chamber
April: Wrestlemania
Late May/early June: Backlash
August: Summerslam
September: Money In The Bank
November: Survivor Series
December: Night of Champions

 

[Syborgg]

We would all love to see the number of PPVs dropped to help build fueds and get people invested in the storylines. However, that's probably not going to happen. I would like to see it be just 12 per year though. Also, they should be consistant as to when the PPVs are. Sometimes they are 3 weeks apart, sometimes a month, sometimes even 2 weeks apart. That's when we see alot of rushed fueds or rematches from the last PPV. The gimmick PPVs could be thrown out or tweaked a bit as well. Like MITB, I would just have the one MITB match with the briefcase being cross-branded. That made the old MITB concept better, the holder of the briefcase was able to cash it in on any of the WWE or WHC titleholders regardless of what show they are on. Same thing with EC. I'd prefer an undisputed champion, but if they have the 2 titles, they both don't NEED to be defended in the chamber IMO.

Now, if they were to go to 6 PPVs, here's what I'd do. First off on the months without a PPV, I'd have Saturday Night's Main Event. But unlike the last versions of SNME, I would have it be a live show with PPV quality matches(Atleast one of the ME titles would be on the line). I know they do house shows on weekends, but imagine every other month that last Saturday of the month house show turning into an SNME?

Then, the PPVs I would keep go as follows
Jan - Rumble
March/early April - WM
June - KOTR with winner getting title match at SummerSlam
Aug- SummerSlam
Oct - Unforgiven
Nov. - Survivor Series.

I put Survivor Series in November for 2 reasons - 1. It's always been in November and 2. I wouldn't have a December PPV because people are spending their money on Christmas and the holidays and not so much on wrestling PPVs.

 

[rage72]

I think the PPV problem is there are too many and not special enough for fans to order. Back when PPV's were $20 bucks you could afford to order a PPV a monyh but with the current prices and the fact that everytime we turn around there is another PPV to order we as fans found other ways to see them or didn't care to watch them.

Back in the day the had 4 PPV's and people used to look forward to them because they special. They were special because the WWE had time to build up the fueds. Now in today's wrestling you can't do just 4 PPV's a year but having 1 everyone 2 months or 6 per year would make things more interesting storywise, be long enough where fans might order all of them.

The question then is which 6 do we have?

1) Royal Rumble in Jan

2) WrestleMania in March or April

3) MITB in May or June

4) Summer Slam in August

5) Survivor Series in November but I would go back to the SS matches

and sometime after Summer Slam I would have either a War Games type match ppv or the Bragging Rights PPV.

This way all of these PPV's would mean something because time was spent building the fueds, the fans would be apt to buy them instead of stealing them.

 

[JJ15776]

Good idea, but part of reason why it wont happen is because WWE creative has no capacity to plan ahead whatsoever. Part of it isnt their fault, its just vince and his moody attitudes. Sometimes he feels one thing and hates it 5 seconds later.

WWE needs events like the elimination chamber in their PPV lineup because they are incapable of making up their mind. I do think they realize that scrapping useless PPV's will mean more money but they feel like they are not capable of doing it because things are always changing.

I'd love to hear more about these intimate, revealing, personal conversations you've had with Vince McMahon himself. What else has he told you about his moods and attitudes? Oh...you just buy the BS dirtsheet reports about the WWE changing their mind? Let me clue you in on a little dirtsheet secret: that's not true! WWE always plans 4-6 months ahead, sometimes longer. The only reason they claim that Vince and the WWE change their mind on the fly is because it gives them a convenient excuse for when they're wrong, which is obviously quite often.

That aside, you do realize that scrapping PPVs means LESS money, right? They would have to DOUBLE their average buyrate if they cut their PPVs in half, and there's no way in hell they'd come close to doing that.

 

[Arsenal]

I've bought 1 PPV in the past 10 years or so (WM 27), because they're not special anymore. There's no build and therefore the feuds aren't as meaningful, and I'm not going to waste ~$50 on a half-assed product.

If they only had 6 PPV's per year which were properly built up, I'd probably buy ALL of them.

For all of you marks who defend the current 12/13 PPV per year schedule because "they make more money", why not have 2 per month then? Why not one every week? They'd make EVEN MORE money right? Right?

 

[Arsenal]

For all of you who justify the atrocious 12/13 PPV per year schedule they currently go with because "they make more money", why not have 15 per year then? Why not 2 per month? They would make EVEN MORE money right?

Having so many PPV's devalues ALL of them and devalues the overall product significantly. Why should anyone pay ~$50 for a half-baked, half-assed, weakly built PPV? I absolutely refuse to do so, whereas if they had 6 PPV's per year with proper build, I'd probably buy them all.

 

[JJ15776]

I think it's inarguable that a high number of PPVs hurts the product. Clearly that's the case. The more time between PPVs, the more time there is to build the matches and the feuds, and that means a better product. I've never heard anyone even try to argue otherwise, because that would be completely nonsensical.

I think there's two things the WWE could do to improve the situation:

Cut down to 8 PPVs. They're not going to be come close to making the money back if they cut down to 6(as I said in the other thread), but they might be able to do so with 8. This would be the schedule:

Mid January: Royal Rumble
Mid February: Elimination Chamber
Early April: WrestleMania
Late May: Whatever
Early July: Whatever
Late August: SummerSlam
Early October: Whatever
Late November: Survivor Series

Put whatever event you want in May, July, and October - I'm not a fan of gimmick events so I'd go with Backlash, Judgment Day, and Unforgiven. But WWE would probably use three of Extreme Rules, Night Of Champions, Money In The Bank, Hell In A Cell, and TLC.

The other solution, of course, is bringing back the Brand Extension and brand-exclusive PPVs and doing a better job with it. Each brand could have an event every 5-6 weeks, plus both brands at the "Big Four," so you could keep the 12 PPVs or even add one or two, but still giving yourself more time between them. It could look something like this:

January: Royal Rumble (both brands)
February: Raw-exclusive PPV
Late March: WrestleMania
Late April: SD!-exclusive PPV
Early May: Raw-exclusive PPV
Mid June: SD!-exclusive PPV
Early July: Raw-exclusive PPV
Late July: SD!-exclusive PPV
Late August: SummerSlam
Late September: Raw-exclusive PPV
Early October: SD!-exclusive PPV
Late October: Raw-exclusive PPV
Late November: Survivor Series
Late December: SD!-exclusive PPV

I don't care about the names of the brand exclusive PPVs, and obviously you can switch the brands. What you could do is make the Royal Rumble winner decide which champion to go after immediately(or, better yet, not even give them the choice like it was originally - the winner goes after their brand's champion), and then the February PPV (Elimination Chamber) would be exclusive to the brand that needs a #1 Contender for their champion, and then alternate from there for the rest of the year.

For each brand, that's only 9 PPVs a year - which would help the product for both brands - but it's 14 overall, giving you some extra revenue. But the key, obviously, is good booking and performing that makes each brand strong enough to stand on their own and sell their own PPV. I don't know if they have the talent on the writing team, or on the roster, to do that right now.

 

[mike1215]

That aside, you do realize that scrapping PPVs means LESS money, right? They would have to DOUBLE their average buyrate if they cut their PPVs in half, and there's no way in hell they'd come close to doing that.

Scrapping PPVs doesn't absolutely mean less money. Earlier in this thread someone did the math (based off of averages) to determine an estimated amount of revenue the WWE gets from one of the non-big four PPVs. I think it came out to be just under $4 million. This may seem like a lot, but after they pay off all of their expenses and liabilities, they really aren't bringing in THAT much money, or at least not enough to significantly grow the business.

For a company whose customer base is falling every year, I think it would be a great idea to entertain the thought of reducing PPVs to 6 per year. Two months between each PPV would give them the opportunity to rebuild the value of their product. But in order to be successful, they have to trust that their creative team can write compelling storylines and make people care about the characters again. If this happens, they are going to draw a larger audience and keep wrestling relevant in mainstream society. And ultimately, when it is time for one of the 6 PPVs, they will have more buyers and buyers who can justify making high dollar purchases for the program.

 

[mike1215]

For all of you who justify the atrocious 12/13 PPV per year schedule they currently go with because "they make more money", why not have 15 per year then? Why not 2 per month? They would make EVEN MORE money right?

Having so many PPV's devalues ALL of them and devalues the overall product significantly. Why should anyone pay ~$50 for a half-baked, half-assed, weakly built PPV? I absolutely refuse to do so, whereas if they had 6 PPV's per year with proper build, I'd probably buy them all.

Exactly.

 

[Godfather81]

So i think the wwe pushes way to many ppvs and sometimes theres like 2 in a month thats no good i remember one time i cant remember what month it was but there was 2 and i think there was even one month were it felt like there was 3 i think the main ones like royal rumble elimination chamber wrestlemania they need to keep those ones for sure but why they push so much down peoples throats its so annoying and another that bugs me is one week theres a tna ppv and the next week a wwe one its hard to keep up with all these ppvs

anyone else agree ?