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

[Deviancy]

There are waay too many ppv's but it's a perfect example of companies putting quantity over quality for the sake of profit. But judging by what I've read on other sites, all they're doing is causing fewer and fewer to bother with the ppv's. So eventully they'll end up making as much profit from 9 ppv's that they used to be able to make with Wrestlemania and the Royal Rumber alone. I also they risk injuring their stars by having more ppv's and working them harder than they worked talent back in the very early 90's.

In my opinion, if the WWE didn't do as many ppv's, Taker would still be in better shape since I think by having more matches it opens the door to more possible injuries, and who knows, Edge may not have suffered his career ending injury.

 

[Slyfox696]

The number of PPVs have nothing to do with the quality of the product. Having 1 big show each month does not hurt the product. If you buy into the argument of over exposure (certainly a reasonable argument, one I believe in), the problem isn't with a PPV show each month, the problem is with the focus on the TV show.

Instead of having your big name workers wrestle each week for free (to keep ratings up), your feuding wrestlers are never in the ring with each other until the PPV. But since the wrestling show needs to get ratings, they have their big name workers wrestle on free TV. But imagine if people could only see Cena wrestle 4 times a year on free TV, and the rest of the time they had to pay for it. Don't you think that would drive up PPV buys? Of course.

The problem is not with too many PPVs, but rather making the free TV shows so strong. Obviously this is done for ratings, but if you could hold back your big drawing wrestlers for PPV only, then feuds could be built just as well as if you had fewer PPVs.

 

[ZyaineB]

What has happened to the prestige of the Big Four, i remember the days when they used to build up these events, the only two they build up nowadays is Royal Rumble and WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series in my opinion has become like every other PPV as of late, especially for me in the UK because they've put MOST PPVs on Sky Box Office, where as 4-5 years ago the only ones that made it to Box Office were the Big Four which made it in my opinion more prestigious and a reason to buy em (By the way i am grateful that i only have to pay £15 for HD and i do think that $45 is WAY too much for SD and in general).

Now onto Bragging Rights, whats the point!
The last time SmackDown vs. Raw mattered was in 2007 nowadays it's completely irrelevant (in my opinion).

My PPV Choice
January: Royal Rumble
Late March/Early April: WrestleMania (with a MITB Match Preferably)
May: Extreme Rules/TLC
June/July: King Of The Ring
August: SummerSlam
November: Survivor Series (with Elimination Chamber Match)

 

[King of the Words]

Since WWE will highly unlikely cut back on the amount of PPV's it has I would like to list the PPV's the WWE has during the year in my own order. This is how I would have them, and this is what I would change....

January, Royal Rumble, Just make it 2 minute intervals again between competitors.

February, No Way Out, This could feature an Elimination chamber Match for the other #1 co. The Man who won the Rumble could put his #1co. on line, along with a WWEC. match and a WHC match.

Late March/ Early April, Wrestlemania, Biggest show of the year.

Late April, Backlash, A lot of Mania rematches with an Extreme Rule added to it.

May, Over the Limit, Have as a regular ppv with 1 concept match for the main event. Maybe an I Quit match or an Iron Man Match for the WWE or WHC title.

June, King of the Ring, Bring back this classic event where one man has to wrestle 3 times to be come KOTR, and gets a shot at what ever champion he chooses to wrestle at Summer Slam. Sort of like what the Rumble does for Mania.

July,WWE Scramble, A night where the main 2 titles are defended in 5 man Scramble Matches. The rest of the card is regular matches.

August, Summer Slam, The second biggest event in the year, possibly held in a large football or baseball stadium like Mania where the biggest matches, outside of mania, occur. If they want to keep it in the L.A. area, maybe have it at the Rose Bowl Stadium.

September, Night of Champions, a night where every title is on the line. Maybe some concept matches so each title is defended in a different way. Such as a battle royal, 2 of 3 falls, submission match, triple threat, etc...

October, T.L.C., a night where TLC and money in the bank matches are combined. Instead of just ladder matches, make them TLC matches to get the briefcases.

November, Survivor Series, Traditional 5 on 5 survivor series elimination tag team matches. One for raw, one for sd, and one for the Divas, Plus the WWEC. and the WHC. titles are defended.

December, Cyber Sunday, The final ppv of the calendar year where the fans choose the matches, and the stipulations to matches. Possible Hell in a cell Match, Fatal four, Gauntlet match, etc... The WWE and the WHC. titles would of course be defended.

This is how I would book the WWE PPV Calendar Year. 12 months, 12 PPV events, redesigned a little to attract more buyers with some older classic PPV's such as KOTR, Backlash, WWE Scramble, and Cyber Sunday. I think a lot of the WWE audience would be very interested in this line up of events. I know I would be!

 

[RicSpade]

The problem understandably isn't whether or not there are too many ppvs but the way they try to get you intrigued in them, the rivalrys aren't nearly built enough now-a-days and the feuds with a few exceptions last all of one ppv. Remember when Macho Man and Warrior started in January and ended in April at WM? or when Bret and Austin would go back and forth for 3-4 ppvs or even in the attitude era between guys like Triple H and rock or Austin and Taker... The feuds aren't built up like they use to be and thats the problem with the product today, the most invested match for wrestlemania has been Rock and Cena and they have built it up for well over a year and even teased it for a while before that with Cena always trashing the Rock.... The rest of the WM card in my opinion feels thrown together and the only other match worth a damn is going to be triple h and taker but again its based on a year of redemption, Jericho and Punk could have been built better than it did, and obviously it seems lopsided for Sheamus to face Daniel Bryan because DB seems like an Underdog...

The rest of the PPV formats just seem to stretched and special attraction matches like TLC and MITB and HIAC and Elimination Chamber don't matter as much as they did when they were thrown into a ppv because they are its own entity its expected now and it leaves us unamused atleast IMHO it does.

 

[King Patrick Star]

Six Pay Per Views is a great idea. With the WWE Network, I think the WWE should cut down to six PPVs and six Sunday Network Specials on alternating months. Every WWE Championship should be defended in every Pay-Per-View. That means, 6 Championship matches plus whatever featured matches.

January – Royal Rumble (featuring the 40 man Royal Rumble match)

March – WrestleMania (featuring Money In The Bank ladder match)

May – King Of The Ring (featuring “I Quit” tournament matches)

July – SummerSlam (featuring Raw and Smackdown Elimination Chamber matches)

September – Invasion (featuring Wrestlers from other promotions (TNA, ROH, etc.) in Extreme Rules matches / TLC matches)

November – Survivor Series (featuring Survivor Series matches / Bragging Rights matches / WarGames matches)

Then, on the WWE Network, in February, June, and October, Raw can have a Sunday Night Special and in April, August, and December, Smackdown can have a Sunday Night Special.

Better yet, in February, April, June, August, October, and December, we can have a Saturday Night’s Main Event on the WWE Network.

 

[Lockard23]

I would have been fine with just the Big Four. Would also love to see King of the Ring come back. Rumble, Wrestlemania, KOTR, Summerslam and Survivor Series. With months of buildup in between all of them, they would have better matches and the buyrates would be a lot better.

 

[Azane]

There's a limit, the ppvs like I think it was HIAC last year, had 2 weeks between it and the previous ppv, those ones I think hurt the product overall, no matter how amazing of a feud you run, 2 weeks isn't enough to make it worthwhile.... especially not when you're using a gimmick that used to mean something.

A month is plenty of time to build a basic feud, it's probably perfect because you get a little back and forth action to tease the match, while not having time to get overhyped for disappointment (Rock vs Cena).

The current product, 2 main weekly shows, is very demanding on writers, the WWE is running it's business model heavily off sponsors more so than when they only did major PPVs in the 80's 90's, it's more profitable for them, and sadly, the dollar goes above entertainment value, they aren't always opposites though, it just makes for compromise once in a while.

WWE could cut ppvs that have no meaning, the ones they do, just to have them, I think in a similar topic, people brought up ppvs like Over the Limit and Bragging Rights that seem to lack direction, if you look at the successful pay-per-views, you don't even need to look at #s.

Royal Rumble: the RR match gives us an opportunity to see most the roster for one night, even a low star power Rumble match* is going to draw a 100,000 views just from the diversity of the roster, not to mention the dynamic they can toss in having a dozen angles baked into 1 match going into it (things like the Orton/Barret feud, the announcers, the Kharma return)

Wrestlemania: Self explanatory, the gimmick to WM is simply that they overbook the hell out of it, and make it their icon, they've put over a year of build into the ME for this year, and in the past they've saved their best for it in general.

Summarslam: This one I don't exactly get, outside of it being one of the big 4, it doesn't have the huge draw of WM, and it doesn't have a direct gimmick match like RR or SS, it just seems to be a mainstay, but they generally save big feuds for it, simply out of tradition.

Survivor Series: This ppv has lost it's direction, but the 8 man tag matches had a much better place in the company 20 years ago, when they had legends in their midcards. The 1 survivor series match they toss in yearly isn't too star laden, so this one's losing it's appeal overall. They still feel the need to book around this one too though.

I've kind of gone off on a tangent, but my point I'm trying to make is that the other PPVs all play as filler to the big 4, in essence. Money in the Bank is taking off, I think it's a success at the cost of hurting the world titles, but that's more a knock on the match type, not the ppv overall.

I don't believe you'd draw that much more to less ppvs, at least not enough to make up the losses of not having a ppv.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

Here is what I would do... Since I would book WrestleMania as being the end of the WWE calender year I will start at the beginning of the year.

June - "King of the Ring": have it be a one night, 16-man-tournament to decide who will challenge for the World Championship at SummerSlam. To me winning four matches in one night is far more impressive than winning a Ladder match. And only have guys win it who you intend to actually make stars (like MITB is used now).

August - "SummerSlam": The WrestleMaina of the Summer. Big matches and where the stars that you are building take that "next big step". Even if they don't win on that stage have them put on a strong enough performance that it leaves open the belief that even though they didn't "win" on paper, they didn't necessarily "loose" in the eyes of the fans.

November - "Survivor Series: The War Games": Combine elements of Survivor Series (the tag team elimination matches), Bragging Rights (Raw vs. Smackdown theme) and the Main Event would be a War Games match between all of the Survivors from the earlier tag team matches. This would make to earlier tag matches have meaning and not just be "filler" matches. Also I would update the "War Games" cage by making it a giant Hell in a Cell type cage that surrounded the two rings. And to make the match mean anything I would give the winning brand the ability to take one person from the other brand and all of the "survivors" on the winning brand would get an open contract to face anyone they want, so that they would have an incentive to have to work together with people they don't like.

January - "Royal Rumble": Keep it the same, start to really build towards WrestleMania (although I would have subtly started to build towards it as soon as the day after last years Mania)

March/April - "WrestleMaina": Where a years worth of storylines culminate. The big feuds have finality, and new stars are made.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

The cost of the product doesn't have as much to do with the lower buyrates as you think.

The bottom half of the curve is poorer people, who will stream or torrent the show regardless of price. The upper half is wealthy enough that 20-50 dollars isn't really that big of a deal to them and it's easier for them to buy than to search the web for a shitty, choppy stream, or waiting until 2am for a torrent to be available. Basically WWE has found that their PPV price is pretty inelastic. The people who are more price sensitive have moved to illegal, free means of viewing. the people who aren't as price sensitive are the only ones left buying, thus, you have an inelastic demand.

So it's not really price and they're actually smart for charging more. I would love to try to find a number of PPV "views" as in, buys plus all the streams and torrents within 24 hours of the show.

A high number doesn't really hurt them either. One a month isn't bad, 1.1 or whatever it is/was isn't really bad either. Vince has people who research this shit and A) have better tools to research it and B) know more about it than we do. I trust what he's doing is what's most profitable.

Something else to consider, the Raws before a PPV and after are generally seen as a bigger deal. If you had 3 months dragging on between shows, the interest in the middle weeks would probably drop. Not only that but the TV format they had back when they did it with fewer PPVs was horrible. Squash, Squash, Champ/challenger promo, Squash, main event between a main eventer and a mid carder.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

Also, I would make WrestleMania a two night event. People complain about the price, well, lower the price to $40 a piece, or the "WrestleMania Weekend" (complete Hall of Fame Ceremony, WM: Night 1 and WM: Night 2) for $75-80.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Also, I would make WrestleMania a two night event. People complain about the price, well, lower the price to $40 a piece, or the "WrestleMania Weekend" (complete Hall of Fame Ceremony, WM: Night 1 and WM: Night 2) for $75-80.

I like it. That's pretty unique, they can bill it as "being too big for one night". I'd implement it at Wrestlemania 30. Great idea.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Bad idea. Like I've said before, people will stream regardless.

Everyone gets all nostalgic about 2-3 months between PPVs, but the time in between them is horrendous. Longer feuds aren't always better. You want the feud to literally be week 1 "champion says he's happy" week 2 "challenger says he's hungry" week 3 "challenger bumps into champion in catering, spills drink on him" week 4 "champion says that made him mad" week 5 "challenger responds and wants a shot" week 6 "champion accepts" week 7 "staredown" week 8 "they face each other on opposite sides of a tag" because that's what you'll get and what it used to be like. Lots of jobber matches and an insane amount of mundane shit going on.

Also, I think it's hilarious that some of you actually think you know Vince "it's Vince and his moody attitudes" REALLY? Come on, even the guys who work for him don't really know him. Vince isn't as machiavellian as he seems. If he were, he wouldn't have such a successful company because that old school bullshit doesn't work anymore.

 

[lowandmighty]

I think 6 ppv's is a good idea but I'd probably want to stretch that to 7 and to make up for storylines the missing ppv's might cover they could throw in the occasional Saturday nights main event and even bring back Sunday night Heat.

I'm not but you could call me conservative if you want because the ppv's I'd want to keep would be the old classic 5 Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania bring back King of the Ring, Summerslam and Survivor Series. I'd also throw in The Great American Bash somewhere paying tribute to the Americanness of wwe. Additionally I'd have one of the other famous wwe ppv's rotated year by year for example backlash one year, vengence in its place the next etc etc.

As far as the order of the ppv's go I'd keep them in relatively the same order because Summerslam obviously has to be in the summer. Summerslam's got to be my favourite of all the ppv's becasue its in the summer and the summer atmosphere is just the best of the year to me. The suns out, the nights are hot and there's party's most nights, the girls are showing off more and most people just have more time off of work etc to party and most importantly beer is kept cold better in summer. Hulk Hogan always seemed to add to that feeling with his over the top tan too, I'm glad his last big matches were at Summerslam. Summerslam's the one ppv I'd regard as "cool" and I'm sure Carlito would agree.
As far as the other ppv's go realistically you could just stick them in anywhere.
Wrestlemania's supposed to be the big one so I guess out of respect you'd leave that where it is and the royal rumble obviously has to be some time before it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

There've been a lot of these threads in the 3 years I've been a poster. For the most part, they all ask the same questions and have virtually the same scenarios. Doesn't mean that they don't sound like good ideas or anything, I just think this is one of the goings on in terms of WWE finances that we probably don't know nearly as much as we might assume we do.

I think TWJC made a good point when he brought up the nostalgic feelings of the old days when there'd be months before another ppv came on. As I recall, it was fairly late in the game, however, when WCW started jacking up the number of ppvs they were putting on. Sure, they were putting on more specials like Clash of the Champions and all that but, according to the Rise and Fall of WCW DVD, even Bischoff said that they were wasting money by not going the same route as WWE at the time as far as their ppv schedule. Also, a much longer build in between doesn't necessarily equal greater quality of feuds or matches, especially not with how fickle a lot of fans can be in this day and age.

I'm going to do a lot of assuming here with this scenario. Let's say WWE did decide to have adopted the 6 ppv schedule for 2012. According to gerweck.net, WWE had roughly 3.8 million total ppv buys in 2011 with each ppv costing roughly $45, aside from WM which cost $55. So 3.8 million ppv buys made a total of $182,150,000. Keeping with the current ppv prices in 2012, let's say WM does about the same number this year as last year. That means that 5 remaining ppvs in this scenario would have to average somewhere around 500,000-525,000 buys in order for these 6 shows to equal the same amount of money.

In this day and age, there's no guarantee that would happen. The WWE can put together a phenomenal show both on paper and execution for a ppv event, but that's no guarantee that droves of people will order it. The 2011 MITB ppv is a perfect example of that. Even with all the interest & intrigue generated by the CM Punk angle, the show still drew 195,000 buys. Sure, WWE could possibly lower the prices of the ppvs and it might lead to an increase in buys. Then again, it might not. No guarantees after all. If they did lower the prices, that'd mean that the 6 shows would have to garner even more buys to equal what WWE ppvs did in 2011.

I doubt that WWE would lose money personally. I don't see how they wouldn't turn a profit but, again, I'm just assuming that. WWE ppvs made pretty close to $200 million in 2011 under the current format, so I don't see that changing. Anyway you slice it or look at it, that's a massive sum of money. WWE most likely won't alter that format as it seems to be working for them financially. Last year, the only thing WWE lost any money on was its film division and there have, allegedly, been backstage talks of doing away with the film division as it just hasn't been working out as a whole. As for the WWE Network, it might not even launch either. As far as I know, WWE hasn't been able to land a single deal with any cable or satellite companies to carry the network.

 

[xxxdaniel_ariesxxx]

Exactly, they can have Two major main events, two huge gates (they could even do package deals on tickets), more guys would have a chance to make a decent payday, they guys wouldn't be as rushed for time/ being cut off of the show due to lack of time, and the cost of running two major productions back to back would most likely be more then offset by the two nights worth of ticket sales, two nights worth of PPV buys and the fact that all you are really doing for night two is resetting the stage (I'm running of the assumption from my experience in building theater sets that the hardest work and money is from the initial build and set up and that simply resetting for the next night is much cheaper and easier)... It seems like a smart business move if you ask me.

 

[theBec2101]

I think it does hurt the product. Usally PPV ment the ending of one feud or and the begaining of another. Now they seem to carry on forever or way to short. the storylines gets crappy and doesnt have time to develop. In a championship and feud with one person and 2-3 weeks later its someone else. I'm not saying just go back to the 4 PPV but maybe 6 or 7 would be just fine.
Wrestle-Mania
King of the Ring
Summer Slam
Unforgiven/Bad Blood
Servivor Series
Royal Rumble
Elimination Chamber/Armageddon

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I loved PPVs when there were only four of them each year. That feeling when we were coming up on a big show--the feuds, the storylines, THE ACTUAL REASONS FOR US TO CARE ABOUT THE MATCH AND ITS OUTCOME--it was exciting. During SummerSlam, for example, they would remind us to join them for their next PPV, Survivor Series, on Thanksgiving night or eve--not some thrown-together show three weeks from then.

Back when PPVs were great, feuds were settled and new ones were born. Title matches were a big deal and title changes were even bigger. Now, titles change all the time. Big Show can beat Cody Rhodes for the IC belt at Mania and lose it on Smackdown a few days later...which would be two title changes with hardly anyone caring. When Rick Rude beat the Ultimate Warrior for the IC belt at WMV, Warrior fans were crushed. Warrior did not win the title back the next night on cable and guess what--that was ok! He won it back almost 5 months later at SummerSlam '89 and that was a much better payoff for the Warrior fans.

Let's be honest here--today's PPVs are, for the most part, $50 RAWs. I can only speak for myself; but, back in the 4-PPV era, if you missed a PPV, you hated it. You couldn't wait for it to come out on Coliseum Video, so you would hope a friend had taped it. The Saturday TVs only showed highlights. Example: Demolition slammed Mr Fuji?! And now he's with the Powers of Pain?! What happened?!?? Nowadays, all I need to do is go online, read the results and almost EVERY TIME think "Glad I didn't buy that".

But, WWE really has no reason to eliminate the monthly PPVs now. People still buy them. Dollars-and-cents-wise, the number of people they would gain by having fewer, but more interesting shows would not financially make sense. Business-wise, they are not going to earn less money to improve the product when people are buying it anyway.

I am an old-school fan who loved the way things were. But, I am not calling for 4 or 5 PPVs a year. That time is gone and those who think it will come back will be disappointed. As long as these second-rate PPVs are purchased on a monthly basis, the WWE has no reason at all to take them away in order to improve the product. If McDonald's stopped selling Big Macs and instead sold three buns with only special sauce and lettuce for $12---and people were buying them anyway---why would they bring back the one some people miss when the masses are paying more for a lesser product anyway. The item itself sucks, but the money is rolling in. Sorry to dumb it down, but that's the way it is.

Good topic...I hope you get a lot of opinion-based responses and not closed-minded, name-calling ones that frequent this board.

 

[King Patrick Star]

Six Pay Per Views is a great idea. With the WWE Network, I think the WWE should cut down to six PPVs and six Sunday Network Specials on alternating months. Every WWE Championship should be defended in every Pay-Per-View. That means, 6 Championship matches plus whatever featured matches.

January – Royal Rumble (featuring the 40 man Royal Rumble match)

March – WrestleMania (featuring Money In The Bank ladder match)

May – King Of The Ring (featuring “I Quit” tournament matches)

July – SummerSlam (featuring Raw and Smackdown Elimination Chamber matches)

September – Invasion (featuring Wrestlers from other promotions (TNA, ROH, etc.) in Extreme Rules matches / TLC matches)

November – Survivor Series (featuring Survivor Series matches / Bragging Rights matches / WarGames matches)

Then, on the WWE Network, in February, June, and October, Raw can have a Sunday Night Special and in April, August, and December, Smackdown can have a Sunday Night Special.

Better yet, in February, April, June, August, October, and December, we can have a Saturday Night’s Main Event on the WWE Network.

I would like to elaborate on my master plan. All Pay-Per-Views take place on the last Sunday of the month. Again, every PPV is “Night Of Champions”, every Title should be defended at every PPV.

January – Royal Rumble (featuring the 40 man Royal Rumble match)
I’d throw in 80 qualifying matches. With 8 weeks, that’s 10 matches a week, 4 on Raw, 4 on Smackdown and 2 on SuperStars.

March – WrestleMania (featuring Money In The Bank ladder match)
Here we can go with what works today. Build the hype. Hype the build. Do the do and get some celebrities in here. Also, one great company, one great Mr. MITB. No need for a Red and a Blue case floating around, though I do understand the marketing behind it.

May – King Of The Ring (featuring “I Quit” tournament matches)
With 8 weeks to work with, we could have a 64 man (Champions are excluded) Tournament. I’d set up 8 one-on-one matches on each show for the first 2 rounds / 3 weeks.
Week 1 – First Round
Week 2 – First Round
Week 3 – Second Round
Week 4 – BYE (no tournament matches)
Week 5 – Third Round Sweet 16
Week 6 – BYE (no tournament matches)
Week 7 – Fourth Round Elite 8 Quarter-Finals
Week 8 - BYE (no tournament matches) heading into the PPV with the “I Quit” Semi-Finals and Final matches

July – SummerSlam (featuring Raw and Smackdown Elimination Chamber matches)
Instead of having the WWE World Championships on the line in the Elimination Chamber matches, I would make these # 1 contender’s matches.

September – Invasion (featuring Wrestlers from other promotions (TNA, ROH, etc.) in Extreme Rules matches / TLC matches)
It’s 2012. I’m sure having an inter-company PPV wouldn’t hurt anyone involved. It can only help future business deals between today’s “Big 3” and the “Small 3,000”.

November – Survivor Series (featuring Survivor Series matches / Bragging Rights matches / WarGames matches)
All 4-on-4 or 5-on-5 matches with different themes. We can have Champions vs. Challengers (specifically # 1 contenders) match, Raw vs. Smackdown match (Face and Heels join together), Yesterday’s Legends vs. Tomorrow’s Legends (think Team Bring It vs. CeNation), SuperStars vs. NXT match (Pros vs. “Rookies”), the list goes on and on. Let’s add a Tag Teams only Survivor Series style match to get 10 more SuperStars on the card, like the first 2 Survivor Series PPVs. The important thing here is the time. Again with 8 weeks to work with, the build could be reminiscent of the late 80s early 90s. Captains can be assigned at week 1 and then the captains can pick teammates throughout the 8 week period.

I love the idea of in February, April, June, August, October, and December, we can have a Saturday Night’s Main Event on the WWE Network. This should be the “Super Smackdown vs. Raw SuperShow” and avoid Purple and keep Red and Blue separate. Purple is for PPVs and Specials only. I’d let them even sub-title it like In Your House.