The State of Wrestling Pay Per Views: Are 12 Events a Year Neccessary?

[javan723]

The purpose of this article is to analyze the benefits of having less PPV's per year.

Essentially, we are at a point in time where the WWE has more competition than ever. With the popularity of UFC on the rise, fans are having a hard time deciding where to spend their hard earned cash. Almost every other month there is a UFC PPV the day before a WWE PPV. Not only do they have to compete with UFC, but TNA is a factor—albeit a small one—but that's still 50 bucks going somewhere other than Vince's pocket.

Another issue I have noticed is content. The past couple of events have had to turn around story lines in two weeks. How does that engage the fans? I mean right now we are heading into Bragging Rights with Dolph Ziggler versus Daniel Bryan. What reason, other than they are both mid-card champs of their respective brands, do they have to fight?

I get the brand versus brand theme, but it seems to be a throw away PPV. The Raw versus Smackdown elimination match could easily be transitioned to be a part of Survivor Series.

That brings us to the championship match. How many times are Kane and Undertaker going to battle it out? This storyline could be built up for two months on TV and culminate in one big PPV match. In the 90's, when this monthly thing started, it worked. WCW and WWE had built these events up because they had some serious competition between each other. That led to some seriously creative plots, and made people really want to buy in. With TNA being the only other major wrestling competition the WWE has, it seems to me that the WWE really hasn't put their best foot forward as far as story lines and rivalries go.

Now it just seems like they are stuck in an antiquated format that is not working, and leading into poor content and buy rates. Ultimately I feel six PPV's would be ideal. Keep the big four (Summer-fest, er..slam, Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, and Survivor Series) then decide what the other two formats should be.



I think this would not only be good for the viewers, but the talent as well. They can showcase other wrestlers on the roster during the smaller two events, almost like Destination X did for the X-Division.

I feel as long as the media keeps expanding, and sports like UFC get bigger, the WWE will really start having bigger problems selling these monthly events as things stand.

Let me know what you think.

Can WWE's current monthly pay per view format be a detriment to their future buy-rates, or do you think that this is just a trend and things will turn around?

 

[The American Legend]

I don't think they can keep going like this for long. I hate the fact that Hell in a Cell was what, two weeks after Summerslam? And I do not get the whole Bragging Rights ppv. The brands don't pick on each other or anything all year until now. I just don't get it.

But I really do think if WWE went to like 6 big ppv's a year with 6 minor ones, they would be better off. Use the minor ones to elevate younger talent, have contenders matches and minor title matches. Then use the big ones for the main title fights and the big feuds, and you can still have the smaller titles being defended if you want. Also, more wrestling, less talking! I hate seeing an hour of talking on my Wrestlemania dvd's, and I sure don't want a Kid Rock concert on it. I'm buying it for the wrestling, not the talking and singing!

Anyway, they need to change. UFC is doing just fine defending the title sparingly and having a few must see ppv's a year. The one big thing though is WWE would have to treat each ppv like it is a big deal, whether it is or not, and give it an appropriate amount of care and time and creativity. Which, as we all now, probably won't happen

 

[Icedawg316]

It's become overload.. who really wants to pay $40 or more especially for ppvs that you just know have been rushed and will probably have just 1 decent match? WWF had fewer pay per views but once WCW went to 12 a year so did Vince, but I just question why now? I seriously doubt TNA having 12 a year plays into anything.

I remember back in the day ECW would really space their pay per views out, you'd have November to Remember but wouldn't have another one until 2-3 months down the road. To me that's the perfect formula, have 5 or 6 a year then use the rest of the time to really build better story lines and matches. WWE just needs to do Rumble, Mania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series then throw a Night of Champions or Bragging rights out there.

How much better would Barrett/Orton be if they had 2 months instead of 2 weeks

 

[I_Am_Electro_Boy]

I definately agree, 6 PPVs a year would be alot better than 12. It would give rivalries the chance to really develop, it would also mean for less of the same matches and feuds which keeps it fresh. It really annoyed me when I found out that HIAC was only two weeks after the previous PPV, I mean come on two weeks, in two weeks a new feud can't develop it would just mean we would have to watch the same match once more.

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

Most of these PPVs are getting about 150,000 to over 200,000 buys every month. At about 35 bucks a pop, thats a lot of revenue coming in each month, even if the buyrates are down like they are.

These PPV's serve a purpose. You most likely wont see big feuds culminate on a ppv other than the big 4, they always end at WM, RR, SS, or Survivor Series (is that still around?). The PPV's in between are just Super Cards pretty much. Great ways too continue and built on feuds until the final battle at one of the big 4. Thats how its always been. Sure some feuds will end at other PPVs or end at the PPV after Mania and Titles will change hands, but the main feuds that the company survives on, won't end on a filler PPV, they end at the big daddies. A PPV every month moves stories along faster and stop the boredom and monotony that RAW and SD! have a tendency to have, until the final battles at Mania and Summerslam.

Someone mentioned how well the Barrett/Orton feud would be if it had 2 months instead of two weeks. That feud isn't about Barrett winning the title or him facing Orton. It's about the Nexus control of Cena. This is just a match to build upon that feud. They have no intention to involve Orton in this feud unless Cena is getting a shot at his title. When Barrett loses it will add more pressure on Cena and force Barrett to be stricter and less patient, as well as the rest of Nexus being fed up with Barrett. Then Orton can go on his own way and defend his title against someone else, giving Raw two high profile feuds.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Whether it is beneficial to the actual product or not, WWE will continue to have 12 PPV's a year because of the money they bring in. Cutting back to 6 PPV's will lose them money. Yes, perhaps with more time the build up the feuds, you may encourage more people to purchase the 6 shows than would have before, but you wont make enough viewers to cover the loss of income from the 6 dropped PPV's.

It is a financial reason, nothing more. I am sure Vince would rather have fewer PPV's and spend more time building up the feuds than being forced into rushing into a month mega-show, with little or no time to gain the interest of the public through the weekly storylines.

Personally, I do like the idea of more long-term feuds spread over 6 PPVs, with the big 4 and 2 other shows. I cant see it happening though