Should WWE bring back In Your House PPV's

[DaBadGuy]

"I really wasn't sure were to put this so moderators fell free to move this if you like."

Does anyone remember the In Your House PPV's will if you do you should know that its not your average once a year PPV like majority of the WWE PPV's now or rather back in the day. In Your House PPV's had many different names and stipulations/gimmicks in it like and some even created future PPV's. With all the gimmick matches that we have today in the WWE I feel that the In Your House PPV's could definatly work in todays WWE. In the age of overfilling the PPV calendar with gimmick PPVs, WWE have kind of forgotten that gimmick matches such as Hell In A Cell only work in moderation, and that there's only so many times you can reinvent such a match.

As a result, a PPV filled with such a match is going to get dull fast and doesn't bode well for future years. If an event was dull this year, why is an event with the same stipulation going to be any better the year after?

In Your House is the perfect answer to such a dilemna. In it's original run, In Your House PPVs were given a subtitle which made them unique. Usually, this was fuelled by the location of the event, or the main event superstars or the stipulation of a match on the bill. As a result, each one had a unique concept which was interesting.

So why should the WWE bring it back to use for their gimmick PPVs? It means that there is less repetition, more originality and things stay stale. Also, a one-off PPV is more likely to attract an audience, it means more concepts can be used and maybe expanded into a yearly PPV if they're well recieved. Also, it gives them an excuse to host PPVs abroad, or maybe revisit old PPV brands as a one-off. Some ideas for future In Your House PPV:

WWE In Your House: Hell In A Cell
WWE In Your House: Armageddon
WWE In Your House: Halloween Havoc (Former WCW PPV)
WWE In Your House: Atlantic Assault (UK Event)
WWE In Your House: Viper's Nest (Randy Orton themed event?)
WWE In Your House: D-Generation X (We already had one, but they could totally re-do it)

We could have one-off tournaments, special matches, and a generally more exciting and unpredictable PPV calendar! If anything, In Your House should have been brought back years ago!

 

[The Brain]

I have been suggesting bringing back the In Your House style events for a while now. Not so much for the themes, but for the length and price of the show. In Your House started in May 1995. From then until September 1997 they were two hour shows that were less expensive than the big five. These shows had five or six matches. It was common for some big stars to be left off the card. Those who were left off would be on the next one and sometimes those on the previous would be left off that one. This kept things more fresh and gave feuds and storylines more time to develop. With all the WWE programming on tv today I don't think we need a three hour ppv every month. Especially at $45 a piece. I know WWE will not go back to this format. I'm sure they would look at it as a step backward. I'm sure they have no interest in lowering the prices of their ppvs. It would be good for them creativley and good for us financially.

 

[theHeadliner]

All the PPVs that they do that are in between the major PPVs would be considered the "In Your House" concept, but they just call them by their theme now. If this were 1997 it would be In Your House: Extreme Rules, nut they just go with the sub-title. They used to be $20, now they are $40-45. I'm pretty sure the big 4 they have left are more expensive than the others, which is also like the original concept of less expensive PPVs branching the story lines out.

 

[DaBadGuy]

I have been suggesting bringing back the In Your House style events for a while now. Not so much for the themes, but for the length and price of the show. In Your House started in May 1995. From then until September 1997 they were two hour shows that were less expensive than the big five. These shows had five or six matches. It was common for some big stars to be left off the card. Those who were left off would be on the next one and sometimes those on the previous would be left off that one. This kept things more fresh and gave feuds and storylines more time to develop. With all the WWE programming on tv today I don't think we need a three hour ppv every month. Especially at $45 a piece. I know WWE will not go back to this format. I'm sure they would look at it as a step backward. I'm sure they have no interest in lowering the prices of their ppvs. It would be good for them creativley and good for us financially.

I never knew that the shows were that low. I never really ordered PPV's that much then but I would definatly love it if WWE prices was that low again. And I agree this would give the lower and mid card guys like Carlito, Primo, MVP, Mark Henry, Yoshi Tatsu, Zack Ryder etc... to get a chance to be in a PPV other than being put in a 20 man battle royal that means nothing.

 

[justinept]

So basically, you'd love to see the WWE charge you $20 each month to see matches are that aren't even good enough to be on Raw right now? Sounds like a winning idea.

People really need to go back and check out these pay per views ... they weren't very good. Personally, I'd rather spend $45 to see two elimination chamber matches than spend $20 to see Carlito and MVP headline an In Your House....

 

[The Brain]

So basically, you'd love to see the WWE charge you $20 each month to see matches are that aren't even good enough to be on Raw right now? Sounds like a winning idea.

People really need to go back and check out these pay per views ... they weren't very good. Personally, I'd rather spend $45 to see two elimination chamber matches than spend $20 to see Carlito and MVP headline an In Your House....

Maybe you should go back and check out these pay per views. Give me one example where two guys on the level of Carlito and MVP headlined an old In Your House. I remember Bret Hart vs. The British Bulldog, Bret Hart vs. Diesel in a cage, Shawn Michaels vs. Diesel in a no holds barred match, Shawn Michaels vs. The British Bulldog, and Shawn Michaels vs. Mankind just to name a few. These pay per views were well worth $20 and in many cases were a much better value than some of the three hour $40 pay per views of the past several years.

 

[DaBadGuy]

So basically, you'd love to see the WWE charge you $20 each month to see matches are that aren't even good enough to be on Raw right now? Sounds like a winning idea.

People really need to go back and check out these pay per views ... they weren't very good. Personally, I'd rather spend $45 to see two elimination chamber matches than spend $20 to see Carlito and MVP headline an In Your House....

First if you were refering to me I didn't even say anything about that I was just agreeing with The Brain saying that it would be good idea for the lower and mid carders to perform on IYH PPV's again. And secondly just because I said MVP and Carlito should be in a PPV that doesn't necassarly mean they have to headline the PPV. The can be the show opener but their apart of the roster to so I think they should at least get some PPV time. And what makes you think the match will be bad just because their mid carders doesn't mean they can't put on a good match. I mean hell half of the low and mid carders are better wrestlers than the main eventers so you can't just say that.

 

[DL23]

"I really wasn't sure were to put this so moderators fell free to move this if you like."

Does anyone remember the In Your House PPV's will if you do you should know that its not your average once a year PPV like majority of the WWE PPV's now or rather back in the day. In Your House PPV's had many different names and stipulations/gimmicks in it like and some even created future PPV's. With all the gimmick matches that we have today in the WWE I feel that the In Your House PPV's could definatly work in todays WWE. In the age of overfilling the PPV calendar with gimmick PPVs, WWE have kind of forgotten that gimmick matches such as Hell In A Cell only work in moderation, and that there's only so many times you can reinvent such a match.

As a result, a PPV filled with such a match is going to get dull fast and doesn't bode well for future years. If an event was dull this year, why is an event with the same stipulation going to be any better the year after?

In Your House is the perfect answer to such a dilemna. In it's original run, In Your House PPVs were given a subtitle which made them unique. Usually, this was fuelled by the location of the event, or the main event superstars or the stipulation of a match on the bill. As a result, each one had a unique concept which was interesting.

So why should the WWE bring it back to use for their gimmick PPVs? It means that there is less repetition, more originality and things stay stale. Also, a one-off PPV is more likely to attract an audience, it means more concepts can be used and maybe expanded into a yearly PPV if they're well recieved. Also, it gives them an excuse to host PPVs abroad, or maybe revisit old PPV brands as a one-off. Some ideas for future In Your House PPV:

WWE In Your House: Hell In A Cell
WWE In Your House: Armageddon
WWE In Your House: Halloween Havoc (Former WCW PPV)
WWE In Your House: Atlantic Assault (UK Event)
WWE In Your House: Viper's Nest (Randy Orton themed event?)
WWE In Your House: D-Generation X (We already had one, but they could totally re-do it)

We could have one-off tournaments, special matches, and a generally more exciting and unpredictable PPV calendar! If anything, In Your House should have been brought back years ago!

I've said for a long time on this forum and others, WWE should bring back the IYH series back, the problem is as much as you'd load it up with mid carders, most guys make their money off PPV bonus's, so either have a card staked with Orton/Kofi, MVP/Batista, or Swagger/Cena would the fans truly buy into it?
probably not simply because IYH series were like RAW or Smackdown with a decent main event, nowadays as fans we've been spoiled for years with mega main events, if WWE could scale back and maybe over a long period bring back the cheaper shows for 3 houes rather then 2 hours, but only have two BIG matches on the card and the rest mid carders and alternate around RAW and smackdown, it could possibly work.

There was a pretty good article about this back in December, about how as fans we wouldn't buy into the IYH concept nowadays like we did back in 1995, simply people wouldn't buy John Cena as world champion facing mid card guys every other PPV like HBK did back in the day.

As for the none big 3 or 4 PPV's I'm bang up for the IYH tag returning before the PPV name to seperate the big shows from the smaller shows.

 

[robbo316]

You do realise that prices have gone up since THIRTEEN years ago, don't you? Just with inflation, $20 would now be somewhere in the region of $30. Does everybody expect these PPV's to be charged at the same prices as last century? I can remember living in California in the late '90s, and a pack of smokes was $1.50, now they have upped the price to over $5! Prices do not stay the same, nor indeed, does the quality. I happened to watch one of those old In Your House PPVs a few days ago, and compared to now it looked like a show put on by a regional promotion.

 

[OutsiderDX]

The problem here is marketing, its a horrible idea to have PPVs with the same name or the same subtitle. The goal is to create individual and uniqueness so each PPV is memorable and sellable. Its hard to sell IYH 23, then next month sell IYH 24.

It's a problem with UFC too, trying to sell UFC 89. Nobody can remember a number, so they have to always market the name with the fighters as UFC 89 "Lesner vs Mononucleosis"

I have no problem with having PPV for cheaper, and without Main Eventers. I just arguing having the same name with a subtitle is a not a good idea. The goal of marketing is to stand out, why go against that.

There is actual no reason why the E can't keep regular PPV names and do a different subtitle each year. They've done it in the past like- like Vengence- Night of Champions (before it was just change to NOC)

So no problem doing - No Way Out - Vipers Nest. I think thats a great idea, so in 5 years ppl will actually remember the name, and not just No Way Out 2010. But we can keep the history of No Way Outs - So JR can point out the tag titles have only changed hands by submission victories only once in an odd number year! *thanks JR*

 

[DL23]

The problem here is marketing, its a horrible idea to have PPVs with the same name or the same subtitle. The goal is to create individual and uniqueness so each PPV is memorable and sellable. Its hard to sell IYH 23, then next month sell IYH 24.

It's a problem with UFC too, trying to sell UFC 89. Nobody can remember a number, so they have to always market the name with the fighters as UFC 89 "Lesner vs Mononucleosis"

I have no problem with having PPV for cheaper, and without Main Eventers. I just arguing having the same name with a subtitle is a not a good idea. The goal of marketing is to stand out, why go against that.

There is actual no reason why the E can't keep regular PPV names and do a different subtitle each year. They've done it in the past like- like Vengence- Night of Champions (before it was just change to NOC)

So no problem doing - No Way Out - Vipers Nest. I think thats a great idea, so in 5 years ppl will actually remember the name, and not just No Way Out 2010. But we can keep the history of No Way Outs - So JR can point out the tag titles have only changed hands by submission victories only once in an odd number year! *thanks JR*

Dude numbers aren't a problem for the UFC not by a long shot, they promote the numbers of the events, however they market the event with main event or some random name like Undisputed (44), Revolution (45), History in the making (100).

 

[Tastycles]

I don't know. As much as we in the IWC and the wider wrestling community as a whole love to talk about the big 4, recent years have shown it to be more of a big 3, with WrestleMania, Summerslam and Royal Rumble falling into that category, and the latter two are gradually coming more into line with the PPVs from the rest of the year.

As a result, there isn't a clear dichotomy any more, and even if the WWE went with a price a third cheaper, I don't think they'd get the necessary amount of buys in for it to make a difference. In Your House was a great idea at the time, but as soon as WCW showed that there was a sufficient market to sell PPVs for full price every month, then the concept ceased to make business sense.

 

[Tastycles]

I certainly see the appeal of the shorter show, in terms of keeping everything fresh, but the fact of the matter is while IYH style shows offer that freshness, they also stop what can be lengthy feuds that are good from going on. A good example would be Mysterio and Jericho last year, which had two or three PPV matches, all of which were excellent last year, in times gone by we would have seen that programme over on a single show. The examples supporting your side of things are far more numerous, but I think you can keep creativity on PPV without having to lop 8 hours off a year's PPV content.