Should They Scale Back The PPVs?

[BillAlfonso]

You guys remember how long some of the bigger names in the biz(Hogan, Flair, etc.) would have the belt for a really long time? I mean, Hogan had the belt for four years or something if I'm not mistaken. Well, I believe the reason that was all possible was because there were only 4 PPV's or big events a year at the time. Think back to Cena's year long reign as champ, we think it's long because he had the belt for 9 months or so, I don't remember so I'll be nice and call it 9. That's nine events compared to when Hogan had it for four years which would have been 16 major events which would equal to having the belt for a year and 4 months today. The difference is that since there were only 4 events, we'd expect a title change only 4 times and anything else would be a surprised to us. They could go back to this format which would allow for better buildups and they could change the title every event and not cheapen the title because it won't change hands as frequently and it'd be a shocker otherwise. They could do it like WCW used to do Clash Of The Champions or how WWE used to have In Your House. Hell, to me, there really wasn't any difference and I kinda enjoyed those shows more than the PPV's. Especially COC because it had that big event feel but I didn't have to ask my old man to shell out that extra cash(at least the economy was better then). So, what do you think?

 

[Schizophrenic]

I do believe that both companies should scale back the PPV's to possiby 6. I've had this conversation before with freinds and we both agreed that a schedule like this would work.

WWE PPV
January: Royal Rumble
March: WrestleMania
May: King of The Ring
August: SummerSlam
September: Random PPV
November: Survivor Series

TNA
February: Against All Odds
April: LockDown
June: Slammiversary
August: Victory Road
October: Bound of Glory
December: Destination X

This would be ideal for fans of both companies as it would allow each company tohave a month and not compete until August. Now yes I understand it's not full proof and there is a chance that if both did go to 6 a year TNA would try to do it on the same months which would be dumb to do but hey this worked in my mind. Overall the PPV's need to be scaled back to make the feuds fresh and longer than rematch after rematch after rematched as well as giving the audience a chance to order more as well.

 

[BillAlfonso]

Those were my thoughts exactly, cutting them back will give us a chance to catch our breaths and give the Creative Teams, and I use the term loosely, time which I think is one of their biggest problems.

 

[Crazyarby]

When Hogan had his long reign, I think Wrestlemania came half-way through and was followed by Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. Hogan was in those events more often then not so he didn't have a title match. There were lots of big events but only in the WWFs New York area and they were not on tv.
TV is the big difference between then and now.
I would like fewer PPVs as well. But its a different time. I don't think it would help the creative side much, they could have better storylines with more or less PPVS.
If we are going for creative breathing room we need fewer big matches on Raw and Smackdown. But wrestling fans would turn off and hurt the Ad revenue for USA and Mynetwork.
WWE makes a ton of money on PPV buys and is not going to cut their revenue in half.
TNA on the other hand should eliminate PPVs altogether and I think they would if they didn't have contracts with PPV providers. They don't do them well and having them in the Impact Zone makes them look like an overpriced Impact. Without PPV you can space the big matches out so they don't have to be on one PPV card. World title one week, X-division the next week and so on. TNA needs rating before it needs PPV buys.

 

[Via Armbar]

It's tough. Having a limited amount of pay per views every year not only makes them more special, but can in turn create more legitimate champions as well. Title changes would happen far less frequently and feuds would be far more meaningful. Build ups would be tremendous and and the ultimate pay off from these feuds would look so much more important when people look back on them. You can look at the UFC and see how building fights up for months work for them. You don't get the fights for months after hearing that they're going to happen. I personally love waiting for a good while and letting the fight simmer in my mind. When fight day actually rolls around the anticipation I have is through the roof. It would be no different with the WWE doing this. There are definitely benefits to booking shows this way. And yet...

I do believe a huge percentage of the money Vince and company make is through pay per views. That can honestly be the end of the conversation there. Money is the driving force in an overwhelming majority of what the WWE does. There are plenty of things fans would like to see, but ultimately it's not what is best for the business. Opinions regarding improvement that they could make aside, it's a fact that after all is said and done making money is what Vince wants to do. You can't take away a huge chunk of revenue like that without risking loss of income. That's just sensible business.

If they were to scale down the frequency of pay per views, it would have to be done very wisely. Calculated decisions would have to be made in regards to which pay per views are axed and which are kept. There would have to be a good mix between the classic shows like the Rumble and Mania and the gimmick shows like Extreme Rules. Saying there should only be 6 pay per views may be cutting a little thing. I think they can get away with 8 or maybe 9 a year. That way there is a balance between build up and incoming cash flow from the previous show. So yes, I would like to see it happen, but slowly and incredibly methodically.