The WWE MUST reduce the number of PPV events

[stop-it-jamaican-me-crazy]

MODERATOR COMMENTS (Lord Sidious)


Keep in mind before posting, that we are answering whether or not it makes long term business sense to reduce the number of PPV's each year. This thread is NOT for indicating which PPV's you like as a fan and which PPV's you don't like, as a fan.

This is a discussion from a business and creative standpoint. Don't let your post be off-topic. Thank you.

To my knowledge, there are currently 13 WWE PPV's a year. There have been many complaints about that being too many PPV's. I agree that there indeed are too many. The WWE makes a lot of money off these events though and we will most likely be seeing a bunch of PPV's a year. But is it really worth it?

Unfortunately, we all know the WWE doesn't have much star power anymore which is why we see the same people in the main event a lot. This leads to many many re-matches on PPV. We've seen Orton/Cena/HHH forever now (thank god this feud is over for the moment). Then we had the recycled feud with Undertaker/Batista.

So how will less PPV's affect the WWE? Sure they'd have to increase the cost of each event but if the viewers are getting something new each PPV, I'm sure they'd still be willing to buy it.

This will prevent Cena vs Orton as the main event for 4 PPV's in a row and will make each PPV feel different than the others. What are everyone's thoughts?

 

[suleman09]

i like your idea and i don't like it, because yea sure we will get something new each PPV and actually the problem IS the higher prices, in this economy you don't want to raise prices on PPV's. Sure the people who have money will still go but the people with little money who can only afford those $25-$50 seats won't be able to go anymore because the prices will be too much for the low quality of seats. you know?

i think what they need to do is, have at the LEST 2 PPV's with same feuds, so one ppv hypes the feud a lot and then over the next month they build it up even more then the next ppv finish off the feud, like john cena can go at sheamus for another ppv now, at RR they can have at it, then if cena wins, they continue because sheamus will have his rematch clause, but if sheamus wins, cena moves on and give someone else the spotlight

 

[Mr_Wrestling_Number_7]

I think they're reason behind all the lesser ppv's, other than the obvious one being money, is because it gives a younger talent a chance at getting over without risking a potential disaster at one of the biggies. In other words, the lesser one shot ppv's are testing grounds for the future. The problem I have with it though is that there isn't enough time week to week to make a younger talent believable to even make headlining a smaller PPV seem legit.

Shaemus for example. I fear for his career now because he is probably not going to make it past RR, thus setting up an eternal shop in the midcards until they change brands with him again.

Multiple PPV's wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't all about making sure we see Cena do a People's Knuckle Shuffle (did anyone actually see him remove his armband the other night?!), an attempted Attitude Adjustment, followed by an eventual STFU. Sorry for the agenda at the end lol.

 

[gtajoker01]

I agree there are too many ppvs and most of them are themed which is pretty useless, like the hell in a cell ppv. They need to go back to the way it was before it with the 2 brands, Raw and Smackdown, both having seperate ppvs.

they would save a lot more money if they cut back on the tv shows. raw and Smackdown is enough.

 

[m1k3b14z3]

well personally i think the amount of ppvs is ok for now it just sucks they are raisin the prices of them but i agree that they should go back to branded ppvs but just for raw and smackdown and ecw can have there time in the major ppvs for example WM or summerslam and let ecw be for the younger talent so they can learn the ropes and when ready be moved to there respective brand

 

[SickJames]

Less PPVs would benefit WWE greatly. More people would buy them imo. It would have us see more build up time for each rather than having 2 in one month.

I think there is one simple solution and that is to get rid of only 2 more PPVs. They've already scrapped Judgment Day, but The Bash & Hell in a Cell should go next over any other.

The Bash isnt even called The Great American Bash anymore and isnt the event it use to be, there's nothing special about it anymore. No disrespect to the event, but it's time to end it.

Hell in a Cell needs to go simply because it's gonna kill the prestige of the Hell in a Cell match and doesnt work like TLC does. TLC is perfect giving us one match involving each weapon then one with all 3. Bragging Rights is a good concept and hypes up the game SvR. Breaking Point is a very well done event that focuses on submission which is great imo. It's the ultimate form of humiliation to tap out so that to me is a great concept.

Backlash still works as the fall out event to WrestleMania and No Way Out (now Elimination Chamber) as the PPV before Mania still works especially with the chambers but they need to change the name back.

Night of Champions is undoubtedly a prestigious night that doesnt need to go. And Extreme Rules is a great idea and something to look forward to especially for hardcore fans.

Aside from that everyone loves the big 4, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble and Survivor Series. which are all extremely great PPVs

So my plan would be to eliminate The Bash & HIAC which are uneeded and WWE would make it so the 11 PPVs are each in a single month, but March wouldnt have a PPV at all being there'd only be 11 and it would leave more time for build up leading to WrestleMania in April.

That imo is all WWE needs to do with PPVs especially raising the prices that would work because every PPV IS worth it except The Bash and HIAC.

More build up, more buys and you get rid of an event you dont need and doesnt offer anything anymore and an event that's only gonna kill the HIAC match

 

[WWF Wrestling Fan]

WWE Should go back to how it use to be only 4 PPV'S a year I have bought all the ppv's this year minus one TLC. We have seen the same matches minus the Cena Sheamus match on all the ppv's either John Cena as champion or Randy Orton as champion every month and to me they need to build up the ppv's every month its like WWE So and so is 3 weeks away, honestly for a ppv it needs to be built up you can not build up a match in less then 3 weeks that is why WWE's ppv's minus the '' Big Four '' are not good they do not give it any time basically the '' Fill In '' PPV's are just like Monday Night Raw and Smack Down and they throw in a ECW Match but you have to pay to watch it when they could just put it on cable for free.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

What I would really like to see is some people do some basic mathematical calculations and show us some figures of how many buys WWE usually has per PPV, multiplied by the current cost ... and compare it to what you are proposing in taking the number of PPV's down to 4 or 5 ... and see what kind of damage you are looking at.

Can someone figure out a way to come close to bringing in the amount of revenue that WWE is today through PPV, by increasing prices per event ... charging more for monthly PPV's and even more for Wrestlemania ... playing around with the number of events, etc.

Vince obviously doesn't want to lose any money from this, and I really don't think there's a way to reduce the number of PPV events while raising prices, and coming close to what he is making today. Maybe you could argue that he would bring in a significantly greater percentage of PPV buyers for each event, but I still have my doubts on that. I think people are in such a habit of buying on a month to month basis, I really question whether the buys and proposed price increase would be significantly greater to offset any of the loss in revenue, or not.

But let's see what you all can do. Let's see your proposals!

 

[Stuntz]

Sidious, I am not good at math however if I recall correctly I believe the E has dropped 2 PPV's for the upcoming year to 13 from 15, and are also going to be raising the price another 5 bucks. So to me if it works out (probably wont with current booking) they are hoping for more buys for each one. IMO they should have dropped 1 to 2 more, as said earlier HIAC must go for reasons not to be mentioned in this thread(PG era). I agree with most of what I have seen in here so far. The fewer the PPV's the more time to build story's, and then more people will want to see the PPV's.

 

[ccotreau1]

I think they should do less PPV events, because of the fact they usually do the same matches over and over and over and it gets dull after a while...And they can also make better storylines, or at least make them longer, for better or for worse (depending on the storyline) I think that they should stick to the big 4 (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series)

 

[Y2J420RKO420]

IMO i think 8 ppvs a year is how many there should so cutting 5 more ppvs there is alot of money cut which is bad so the only way it will work is to raise prices on just about EVERYTHING besides dvds and shirts. ppvs be 50 wm be 60 no more 20 dollars seats have every seat go up 5 besides $150 plus seats. ok 13 ppvs cost 600 for fans 8 at my price would be 400 so there going to have to make the 200 dollars up some were and 200 dollars a fan is alot of money but by raising eveything else too you could easly make up the money.
now as a fan who orders the big four only i really would not mind payin the extra 5 dollars but a fan who orders every ppv might mind but the reason they should not mind either because less ppvs = better product = more enjoyment.

the only other solution to better ppvs would be to cut one more (12) and have brand ppvs because i think thats how it should be because it would just better all around and they still wouldnt lose as much as money as they would be by cutting 5 ppvs (so no other prices are raised) but i think the the reason they dont do it that way is because there is just A not enough people on the rosters for a good ppv every other month B and because SD is just not popular enough to bring in good buy rates htere for more money loss

so all in all i think that we will ALWAYS have atleast 12 ppvs a year one last reason why vince CANT cut more ppvs is because if we had only 8-10 ppvs during the months that they dont have a ppv will benefit tna more thann wwe cause die hard fans who order every wwe ppv and just watch tna will start buying there ppvs on the months thay dont have to pay for a wwe ppv.

 

[deshbo]

They should have 4 to 5 ppv per year to build up storylines instead of all these ppvs because all those ppvs is just to make money. All you see in the ppvs is the same people fighting over and over every month that make it boring. People get tired of seeing the same people in every ppv, 1 to 2 months is good enough no more than that. Hopefully they can make some changes for 2010 and improve the wrestling instead of continuing these dull stories.

 

[m1k3b14z3]

i read that someone suggested removing the HIAC and Bash ppv's which make sense to me but better leave 1 spot open still and bring the the king of the ring which was one of the major ppv up til 6 years ago in turn would open up more story lines and way to push younger talent which would be fresh faces and if built right ppl would buy the ppv and idk how many ppl wil remember this but the winner was also granted a title shot at summerslam just in this era's case the winner gets a shot at which ever shows title for example a raw superstar wins he gets a wwe title shot well theres my idea

 

[KingNick]

I couldn't agree more that there are too many ppvs. I miss the days where they would develop a story line over months and months rather than a 3 week time period. It always just seems so rushed.

I also really miss the King of the Ring PPV. If done properly, I think it's a great concept (i.e. it sucked when they had only 2 KOTR matches rather than the whole ppv being about the tournament). Particularly now they could do smackdown vs. raw or something.

My humble opinion: Wrestlemania, King of the Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble is what they should stick to and maybe OCCASSIONALLY have an extra ppv.

 

[ahhitsreck]

I agree with KingNick, WWE has too many PPV's and it doesnt give enough time to build storylines. I think that's what was so great about the early 90's they had great rivalries because they had more time to build them. They only had Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, King of The Ring, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series. IMO they should stick to that and maybe a Night of Champions in the middle.

 

[Piss Bucket]

I don't know about reducing the number of PPVs, but they should increase the number of ones which are "free" on Sky Sports 1 in the uK IMO, over the last few months there's been 3 big name PPVs, 2 of which have been £15 on Box Office, namely Survivor Series and last Sunday's TLC, Bragging Rights was on Sky Sports.

At least with TNA we get ALL their PPVs free, OK the coverage is the following Wednesday after the show on a Sunday, but at least it's free.