Timeframes between PPV events (keep it in here!!!!)

[Nate DaMac]

There's always a decent amount of discussion around here about the amount of PPVs or the length of time between them. I think that the first half of the year has shown us that 4 weeks is just the right amount of time in most cases.

Elimination Chamber was on 2/19 and Wrestlemania was on 4/1. 6 weeks separated the 2 shows, but was any of it really necessary? Most of the card was already established by week 4 and nothing relevant was really established after.

Extreme Rules came exactly 4 weeks later. Anyone have any complaints about the amount of build any of the big matches received? Let me rephrase that, was there any complaints about the build that could have been avoided by giving it more time? Cena/Lesnar established everything it needed to. Jericho/Punk and DB/Sheamus were rematches and whether or not you liked the program, do you really think anything would have been better if there were 2 more weeks in there? I don't think so.

Now look at where we are. Over the Limit is this Sunday, 3 weeks after Extreme Rules, and has any of the programs going in had any solid build? Cena/Big Johnny maybe, but that's really about it.

Of course, there are some exceptions. For instance, this Lesnar/Triple H feud would have been a complete bust if it happened next week. Naturally the nature of the feud dictates how much build it needs, but most of these feuds are a on a month to month basis so the need for a long, drawn out build is really unnecessary. On the other hand, having 2-3 weeks of build do very little to gain any interest.

So I say 4 weeks is more than enough time, yes?

 

[Darkdarkdays]

Compared to the old WWF feuds,they would often build for months and months before finally coming to a head at one of the big 4.

4 weeks clearly isn't enough time to build much of anything these days.....holding 10,11,12,13 PPVS a year isn't about enhancing the talent or story lines, it's all about money...

 

[SMKM]

Unlike most I agree with Chuck here, 4 weeks is more than enough time, unless the storyline is extremely gripping enough that fans are willing to wait 2 or 3 months before the penultimate matchup between 2 superstars, 1 month is enough time for a feud to get its spark and have a great (or in some cases not so great) match. Seriously 6 weeks, by the third week in depending on the feud most cases i just say have the damn match already. I mean look at certain feuds that go for 3 or 4 months like Cody and Big Show, after their Wrestlemania match I figured ok time for something new, but then they continued it, granted their rematch at ER wasn't bad (and the way Cody won was brilliant) but imagine if they never had the WM match and instead had the storyline build up to just ER.....tell me honestly, would you have wanted to wait that long to see that match. then again maybe that is a bad example since the original build up was in fact 6 weeks, but you get the point.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Compared to the old WWF feuds,they would often build for months and months before finally coming to a head at one of the big 4.

4 weeks clearly isn't enough time to build much of anything these days.....holding 10,11,12,13 PPVS a year isn't about enhancing the talent or story lines, it's all about money...

When they would build for months and months, they weren't featured twice a week on prime-time TV. Trying to spend 3-4 months on building a PPV in this day and age would never work. Could you imagine how bored 90% of the audience would be if Daniel Bryan and CM Punk had to build a feud for 3-4 months before a PPV blowoff? They're both featured on TV every single week, sometimes twice a week. How could they possibly build a story that takes that long to culminate?

 

[cm ben]

I think it depends. Usually it works, but when something goes awry, I think they kind of back themselves into a corner by squeezing so many PPVs in.

The clearest and most recent example I can think of is the HHH-CM Punk-Nash-Cena-Del Rio mess that happened this past summer. Del Rio cashed in on Punk after interference from Nash. After Nash wasn't cleared to wrestle, though, things got weird. Because they needed a replacement match for the next PPV, HHH and Punk got mad at each other really quickly. I think Punk lost a lot of steam there, because he was using his "pipebombs" as a novelty act, not to actually express something important as he had in months prior. The two had the no-DQ match and then just kind of trailed off from each other--it was very clearly just filler.

Cena and Del Rio's feud was laughably bad as well. Their whole beef was about how Del Rio was a coward, because he won the title using the briefcase, which, two months before, during his feud with Punk, Cena was saying was okay. That was just a really awkward period, which highlighted how when something like an injury occurs, matches might need more time (that they don't have) to build.

 

[Headman]

Spending $60 every four weeks isn't so great. I'd probably buy more ppvs if they were eight weeks apart. As for time to build, sometimes it's enough but sometimes it's not. It just depends. I thought Brock/Cena was booked well but that's because Brock/Cena with no storyline would be fine.

 

[TLK]

They can justify having PPVs so frequently by adding random stipulations to the same matches they had on the previous PPV. What I don't care for with the Punk/Bryan matchup (for storyline purposes), is that there hasn't been ANY promo time between the two. Punk is still interjecting himself into the Johnny/Cena feud instead of focusing on his upcoming opponent. I've never been a fan of the Beat the Clock challenge to determine #1 contenders, but at least have Bryan call Punk out and establish himself as a viable threat. I don't think there was enough time to build this match since 1 week was used to determine the #1 contender, and the rest of the time has been given to HHH/Heyman/Lesnar and Johnny/Cena. I realize they're hoping the match sells itself, but some backstory would've been nice.

 

[LegendKiller123]

ppv every 4 weeks is bad cause i dont want to focus on a ppv everytime another ppv finishes i wanna focus on raw the show for big ppvs i think they should have 6 weeks so its more intense for the main event matches also it doesnt even feel like over the limit is this sunday thats how weird wwe is gone!!

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

With the amount of wrestling programming available these days, four weeks between PPVs is surely more than enough. The brand split is almost non existent and so wrestlers can ideally promote their feuds on both Raw and Smackdown. There will always be the odd feud that will require more build-up like Cena/ Rock but you do not need more than four weeks for some midcard feud like Cody vs Big Show or something. Anything above four weeks seems like overkill for most feuds.

Even 3 weeks are alright if you have some material to work with. For example, I do not think time is interfering with the build-up for Bryan vs Punk. It's the booking that is mediocre. I mean, I haven't heard Bryan speak of being undefeated against Punk till now. Nor have I heard of their history in the indies recently. Now three weeks is enough to reference all that.

It's the PPV's that take place in two weeks of each other that annoy me the most. The cards mostly turn out to be the same but only with different stipulations. Why should any sane person be interested in seeing both the cards?

 

[mrpops]

If WWE would just stick to 12 PPV's per year most people wouldnt complain. 12 is the sweet spot. Going to 13 or 14 just screws everything up and makes everything feel rushed.

4 weeks between every PPV is perfect.
Week 1 is fallout from last nights PPV and starts new stories.
Week 2 starts pushing new stories.
Week 3 Things are heating up.
Week 4 things explode and their ready to tear each other apart as they hype the PPV.

3 weeks kills the momentum and makes it feel rushed as you lose alot of steam and you lose alot of time to properly build up a PPV. I dont even want to watch OTL because all the matches seem to be thrown together at the last second. Oh and its $50+ to watch any PPV now.

 

[Dagger Dias]

4 weeks to hype a PPV event is a reasonable compromise. What many fans who complain about "too many PPV's" do not get is that WWE makes more money from having more shows than they would with only the Big 4. They are not going to be removing anymore PPV events anytime soon it seems. Having one PPV event per month is fine. It could be worse.... It is so frustrating to see a show only get three or even two weeks of build.

The only shows that really need more than a month are Wrestlemania and Summerslam due to being the biggest shows of the year. They are followed by Extreme Rules which is just Wrestlemania rematches anyhow and Night of Champions which sells on its every title up for grabs gimmick. Those two shows can handle a three week build and still draw decent buys. WWE should leave it as a one PPV per month format. No more than that, so the fans can afford the shows they choose to watch. No less, so they still make a profit. It is a happy medium in between the two extremes of too many shows or removing all but the Big 4.

 

[Killercam]

Would you enjoy the product more if:
we only had one weekly show (Raw, maybe make it 3 hours) and then maybe a 2 hour show on the weekend that served as a recap and featured the smaller angles they would be pushing at a given time and also showcased "B" talent and kept the promos short.
Have only 6 ppvs, four hours each, WM 5 hours
In the non ppv months have a "Sat. Night Main Event" type show (for free)

I think this type of schedule would help get back to making the storylines more meaningful and create more anticipation. Any thoughts on this? I know with the WWE Network coming along and the money to be made this is not even a remote possibility but I was just curious if, in a perfect wrestling world, would anyone else enjoy the product more if they took a "less is more" type approach. This would be basically a hybrid schedule of the late 80's/ early 90's and what we've had for the last 17 years or so

 

[xavyer]

That is a great idea, have RAW for 2 1/2 or 3 hours, since most of the smackdown superstar wrestle on raw anyway, then have nxt or superstars for two hours on fridays or saturdays for the up and coming superstars or the mid card, and like the old days, have the major four pay per views, the rumble, wrestlemania, summerslam and survivor series, and probably squeeze one pay per view late december for the holidays, and like in the late 80's early 90's, have one show at the end of the year to review what went on in the year bethween the superstars, some events outside the ring, etc., that way, the WWE would have time to build storylines that make sence, people can always look forward for the ppvit would be better in every way, because today, sometimes there's not even a month between ppvs, and sometimes we end up watching the same match for two or three ppvs in a row, this way, with 4 or 5 ppvs a year,there can be more matches, the storyline can be much better with more time to build them, and more superstar can participate in everything.....

 

[ECW Sandman]

Okay After reading the results from last night's Over The Limit PPV and checking to see when the next PPV was, I couldn't help but shake my head when I saw that EVERY PPV is THREE (3) weeks from the last PPV , That is not enough time to start a feud It take a least if I remember right at least 3- 6 months to start a good feud not 2 weeks or 2 hours.


Vince is always upset about how the buy rates are and not enough crowd reaction well having a PPV every three weeks and not enough crowd reaction and not having any time for a build up to make a good feud will do that, Here's what I think they should honestly do scale down the PPV's they don't need a PPV every month the night after a PPV they go right into telling people the next PPV Will be in just 3 weeks or a month away I'm not saying they should go back to only the big 4 PPV's but only 6 PPV'S A year.



Jan. Royal Rumble

March/ April Wrestle Mania

June No Way Out

Aug. Summer Slam

Sep. Extreme Rules

Nov. Survivor Series


So my question should WWE scale down there PPV's to Six per year or are you guy's happy with having a PPV every 3 weeks with no build up and no storyline.


Your Thoughts.

 

[bucktacular]

I definitely agree that they don't leave enough time to build up to the PPVs, but I don't WWE scaling back any time soon. They generate too much revenue on each PPV for them to cut back, and they wouldn't have any way to replace it in their financials. Even though the buy rates are down year over year, I would suspect that WWE is still getting more buys on an annual basis than if they went to 6 per year. Based on your schedule above, I don't think No Way Out will get twice as many buys as Over the Limit and Now Way Out get during this current monthly PPV schedule. No doubt the product would be better, but it wouldn't make business sense.

 

[Adam Rush]

I understand how you guys feel. But I have a better theory. We don't need to scale back to 4 or 6 ppv's to make this work. In my WWE simulations, I run 12 ppv's a year, and it works very well. By the way, there are only 12 ppv's this year. Now what I'd do with the current ppv's is I'd make minor tweaks. I'd move the ppv's to the end of each months, therefore giving it 4-5 weeks instead of 3. (I'd also switch Money in the Bank with Night of Champions, which would allow the WWE to hold a Money in the Bank match at Wrestlemania if they so choose.)
My idea would allow a little more building time, while maximizing the WWE's income. That would be the best thing for all parties involved. If you really wanna scale back to 6 ppv's a year, you must want the brand extension to end too, and for roster cuts to happen. 6 ppv's a year won't work, not enough income. 8 ppv's could work, if you do this:

January- Royal Rumble
March- WrestleMania (Money in the Bank match)
April- Extreme Rules
May- TLC
June- No Way Out (Combine with Elimination Chamber)
August- SummerSlam
September- Night of Champions
November- Survivor Series

That would give 2 months to hype each big 4 ppv, but this would be the bare minimum. Can't go any lower than 8.

 

[bucktacular]

6 ppv's a year won't work, not enough income. 8 ppv's could work, if you do this:

January- Royal Rumble
March- WrestleMania (Money in the Bank match)
April- Extreme Rules
May- TLC
June- No Way Out (Combine with Elimination Chamber)
August- SummerSlam
September- Night of Champions
November- Survivor Series

That would give 2 months to hype each big 4 ppv, but this would be the bare minimum. Can't go any lower than 8.

I think the only problem with this schedule would be that it would leave the 4Q with only one PPV. The 1Q would look good because WM would cover a lot of the revenue that would be lost without a February event. 2Q would have its typical 3 events and the 3Q would have SummerSlam to prop up its numbers.

Has there every been an explanation about why Saturday Night Main Events stopped happening on network TV? I could see a 8 PPV schedule with a Saturday Night Main Event on the other 4 months picking up the slack. The timing would work out great with your schedule since they'd occur the month before the Big 4 PPV events.

 

[ECW Sandman]

No way is 4 weeks away dude!!
June 17th!!So what you on about???

Okay what I mean is THERE ARE NO BUILD UPS in 3 or 4 weeks time that's still Not enough time to build a good feud.Feuds need time to have a good storyline to be good for example


last night Christian winning the IC Title he just came back last night and already won the title that is down right stupid he should have came back tonight and tagged with Rhodes for a month or two and have Rhodes turn on him and set up a feud at Summer Slam for the title that would have been better.

Now back in 1990 The Texas Tornado beat Mr. Perfect for the IC Title in his first PPV and he was in the WWF for a month or less and Perfect was set to drop the title to Brutus The Barber Beefcake but Brutus was in a legit boating accident and shattered his face and then The British Bulldog was next in line but he also had got injured so WWF went with Kerry Von Erich The Texas Tornado and he beat Mr. Perfect for the belt that I could understand they need someone quick because of the match was already set.


But last night was kinda stupid like I said long BUILD UPS would make the PPV's A LOT BETTER.

 

[kdk5680]

* PPVs is good Idea but this would be my schedule (all PPVs at end of month)

Jan. Royal Rumble
March Wrestlemania
May Elimination Chamber/No Way Out
June King of the Ring Spend the month of June with qualifying matches leading to an 8 man elimination tournament with winner getting title shot at Summer Slam
Aug. Summer Slam MitB match should be here as well
Sept Night of Champions
Oct Extreme Rules combined with TLC but renamed Halloween Havoc (I always liked that PPV theme)
Nov Survivor Series


I realize this doesnt give the 2 month break before Survivor, but I feel the break before and after WRM make it feel that much more special.

 

[Workrate]

The amount and time between pay-per-views is irrelevant. The bottom line is, they need to build better storylines and be less stringent about who is feuding with who. There's no reason they can't run an overarching feud between, say John Cena and Big Show, with the pay-off match two or three pay-per-views down the road, while having Cena and Show compete in other matches at the big events. Once again, it all falls back on creative.

The biggest problem of all seems to be the lack of cohesion and planning. If they're re-writing an entire episode of Raw the same afternoon it airs, then there's an obvious lack of direction. If they planned ahead and allowed themselves to see those plans through before getting distracted and going back to the drawing board, they could easily utilize the current pay-per-view schedule. Ultimately, these are just television shows, right? So why does the WWE seeming not plan at all for the long-term? Just because you're doing live programming doesn't mean you should abandon ship and wander aimlessly every week.

 

[Dyscord]

Didn't we have 12 PPVs a year back in the attitude era and such? And there seemed to be a LOT of build up done in those days. So I think it's creative's issue. They don't plan for the long term like they did back then. Of course, like I said before, it's hard to plan for a good storyline and such when Vince changes stuff around at the last minute most of the time.