Too Many PPVs!!!

[gwumusic10]

To me this is the WWE's problem. Tonight they had the Night of Champions PPV and then they are advertising the Hell In A Cell PPV 2 weeks from tonight.

This is not smart if you ask me....This is why the PPVs are never worth the amount of money they are charging. I mean how are they going to be able to give any kind of build up and credibility to the PPV.....I can already tell you the a lot of the matches you saw tonight will be the card for HIAC....The only difference is....It will be held in HIAC

Henry vs. Orton
Triple H vs. CM Punk
Alberto Del Rio vs. Cena

Now i'm not sure about the Triple H and CM Punk but I am willing to bet that the 2 championship matches we saw tonight will be the exact same at HIAC.

I don't mind PPVs but back in the mid and late 90s even in the early 00's the buildups to the PPVs were awesome and feuds had time to blossom.

What do you think WWE should do to solve this problem?

 

[Mr.Fortuna]

Well quite simply lessen the ppvs. I mean the business isnt as big or as popular to sustain monthly ppvs, why not lessen to 6-8 a year that way there will be better build and more reasons to spend your hard earned dollar. Also these stupid gimmick ppvs need to end ASAP, I hate the idea knowing that a HIAC match is going to happen.

 

[keehlnate]

Well I'm not against on having too many PPVs what I don't like is having the same matches all over again. On the upcoming HIAC matches we would definitely see the same title matches as we have at NoC only inside the HIAC.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Doesn't matter the WWE has been doing this format for years and it is working for WWE.

WWE has stock holders to answer to. Giving up an event that generates revenue is not going to please their stock holders. They won't see it as a way to satisfy the consumer, they will see it as a company in decline.

As a fan I can tell you that decreasing the number of PPV sounds good but it does not guarantee the execution of the feuds is going to be better.

If you don't like the number of PPVs that WWE holds in a year the best thing you can do is not pay for so many and encourage others to do the same.

 

[LegendKiller716]

WWE wants the revenue, so I say keep the same amount of PPVs but move some gimmick PPVs to a different night. Maybe Saturday or Tuesday. Like ever other PPV have a $30 gimmick PPV.

For example in 2 weeks have King Of The Ring. No storylines, no titles on the line, just a one night tournament. Then have Survivor Series, then in 2 or three weeks have another gimmick PPV without main storylines on the card. Another Gimmick PPV could be MITB. That's such an exciting PPV they don't need a world title match.

I'm not good at putting ideas into words so I hope that all made sense.

 

[gwumusic10]

Doesn't matter the WWE has been doing this format for years and it is working for WWE.

WWE has stock holders to answer to. Giving up an event that generates revenue is not going to please their stock holders. They won't see it as a way to satisfy the consumer, they will see it as a company in decline.

As a fan I can tell you that decreasing the number of PPV sounds good but it does not guarantee the execution of the feuds is going to be better.

If you don't like the number of PPVs that WWE holds in a year the best thing you can do is not pay for so many and encourage others to do the same.

I actually don't order the PPVs but I get what you're saying about the stock holders.....I just think having a ppv then following it up 2 weeks later with no buildup isn't good for the consumer either

 

[FutureCreative]

Hmmm. You know, there's one thing I'd consider doing if I had some stroke in the WWE, and that's take away all these crappy B-PPV's. Strip it back to the big 4 then re-introduce the big 4 PPVs of WCW. It would add prestige to the events not to mention the nostalgia dollar. It worked epically for the Old School Raw and I'd personally mark out for an Old School Nitro that there was talk of doing. Then you'd have 8 PPVs per year to build to. A Starrcade would sell more than a Capitol Punishment. If they had these 8 events a year, it'd make them seem much more of big deal and worth $50.

Side note: Thank god NoC was free in the UK, cos I'd be p***ed off right now if I'd had paid to see that cluster-f**k of a PPV. Only thing they got right in my opinion was Henry's clean win. They dropped the ball with Beth. OMG a Diva's match I was invested in!

 

[ECW Sandman]

I remember when they was only 4 PPV'S Royal Rumble Wrestle Mania Summer Slam and Survivor Series, and then WWF made The King Of The Ring a new PPV but old concept of the Tournament and have the winner be come '' The King Of The WWF '' then The next new PPV after KOTR was In Your House I remember the very first In Your House I still remember the price of that PPV it was like 14. 95 Plus Tax but it was still cheap as hell that's the only PPV for WWF / E that was so cheap but after In Your House 1 That's when everything started with that, PPV's every damn month I understand why they did it back then because WCW had a lot of PPV's going on but when they bought WCW in 2001 IMO they should have scaled down the PPV's a lot of people now a days can not afford to buy all the PPV'S every month that's why I liked it when they only had '' The Big 4 '' then '' The Big 5 '' they had time to build feuds up and not rush in to a new feud some times I watch WWE and I am so damn confused on who's in what feud, my other complaint about it is watching a match at a ppv IE ECW December To Dismember PPV there was only one or two matches that had a little build up to it the Hardy's vs MNM and the Extreme Elimination Chamber Match that's it the other matches to this day when I watch it I sit there and think to my self why is this PPV even made it was so damn horrible Hell I think it might be as worse then WCW's Halloween Havoc ''Chamber of Horrors Match'' and that was a weak PPV as well.

 

[KoC417]

Simply put I'd move it to 6 PPVs a year and throw in some Clash of the Champions (from WCW) or Saturday Nights Main Event style free PPVs. Let rivalries build, and develop. I remember when rivalries went on for seemingly months and it was never a problem because they weren't stale they were planned out fully and executed to near perfection. Need an example? How about...I know I know this one will be horrible but DDP vs. Macho Man. That rivalry developed over a long stretch of time. And it was great because both men went at it like mad men. Sold injuries, got "jumped" etc etc. It was a long, well thought out process. Now a days it's *boom* you guys are rivals...why? well..just because we want you to be. Then as quickly as it started it ends.
Simple formula for the WWE: Decrease PPV's, increase customer interaction/satisfaction.
Give us 2 HUGE PPVs. Call them WrestleMania and the other Starrcade. Increase rivalry length. Have storylines that make sense and use PPVs to expand rivalries. Let rivalries play out over say 2-3 months. Then spice things up. Have an "injury". Give it a loser leave match. Give the rivalry a DEFINITE finality.

I would hate to be the guy to burst Vince's bubble by telling him the stock holders are utter MORONS and it's not about what THEY want, it's about what WE want.

 

[workhorse]

As it stands, in 2011 there is/will be 13 WWE PPV's.
Most PPV's have a set of 4 weeks between each. Between Elimination Chamber and Wrestlemania there was 6 weeks and between Summerslam and Night of Champions there was 5. The least is between Night of Champions and Hell in a Cell in which there are only 2 weeks!

This is frankly, quite ridiculous. I would much prefer to see the WWE reduce the number to around 9 or 10. It is still a lot of PPV's but, have around 5 weeks between each PPV, 6/7 weeks before Wrestlemania and 6/7 weeks before Summerslam. This gives WWE time to build feuds so much that the matches at the PPV's are highly anticipated, thus increasing buys.

My idea for 2012 PPV Schedule

1. Royal Rumble
Date: January 17th
- Pretty straight forward, Royal Rumble match as the Mainevent/Gimmick.

2. Elimination Chamber
Date: February 21st (35 days since last)
- Smackdown! and Raw Elimination Chambers as the Mainevent/Gimmick.

3. Wrestlemania XXVIII
Date: April 4th (42 days since last)
- Same as always except more matches this year! Should have at least 10 matches on the card.

4. Money in the Bank
Date: May 9th (35 days since last)
- Smackdown! and Raw Money in the Bank Ladder Matches as the Mainevent/Gimmick.

5. King of the Ring
Date: June 13th (35 days since last)
- New(Re-vamped) PPV idea. Have qualifying matches on Smackdown! and Raw leading the the event which features Semi-Finals(maybe the final 4 from each brand have a fatal-4-way at KotR) and Final as the Mainevent/Gimmick. Also features other matches aside from the King of the Ring Tournament.

6. Summerslam
Date: August 1st (49 days since last)
- Advertise this as the main and pretty much only PPV of the summer. Build big storylines and produce a supershow that is equal to Wrestlemania.

7. Night of Champions
Date: September 5th (35 days since last)
- Every championship is defended. Can also feature additional matches that don't involve a championship, perhaps #1 Contenders Matches for the Major Championships.

8. Hell in a Cell
Date: October 10th (35 days since last)
- Each brand has a Hell in a Cell match on the card.

9. Survivor Series
Date: November 14th (35 days since last)
- Each brand has at least one 5-on-5 Tag Team Match or there are two 5-on-5 Tag Team Matches featuring Superstars from both brands in each. Another idea is to have the Mainevent of the show be a Last Man Standing Match or I Quit Match (plays along with the whole survivor thing)

10. Tables, Ladders and Chairs
Date: October 10th (35 days since last)
- Every match on the card features Tables, Ladders and/or Chairs.

If this were to happen (longer time between each PPV for more storylines) then I would love to see each Normal PPV have at least 7/8 matches, Summerslam have around 10 matches and Wrestlemania have around 12.

Just an idea though

 

[Redemption-2012]

This is a very simple question to answer, I would remove stupid PPV'S that have been ruined such as HIAC and maybe even TLC so that could tons of build up before the rumble match. I would have 9 a year and put the price down to $30 for gimmick ppv's and make WrestleMania $40.

 

[willross]

Losing PPV's while lowering prices to 30 dollars would end up keeping their revenue the same as it is now, so it wouldn't make a difference really.

The system they have is guaranteed to generate dollars. You forget that all these PPV's mean all these extra sponsorship dollars, ticket sales, merch sales, etc.

I do however agree that 13 per year is 1 too many. One PPV per month is fine at 39.99, we as consumers just have to pick our spots more carefully if we want to guarantee we feel like we got more than our moneys worth

 

[Corpse_Machine]

Henry vs. Orton
Triple H vs. CM Punk
Alberto Del Rio vs. Cena

You can bank on the two championship rematches but theres also a huge opening for a rematch between HHH and CM Punk, obviously not with the stipulation of HHH resigning but with another stipulation being Hell in a Cell. Punk somehow goad's HHH into agreeing to a rematch only this time there's a Cell to rule out any kind of interference.

Your right that they wont have a long time to build new rivalries and they probably wont, so i'd even go as far as to say that somehow Miz and Truth get a rematch with Air-Boom unless theres some kind of tag team battle royale on Raw tonight, but thats a whole other thread.

I haven't read all of the posts on this so if this has been said i do apoligise .

 

[Da Big Champ]

WOW Im surprised nobody mentioned splitting the PPVs. When I started watching WWE the PPVs were shared between Smackdown and Raw eg. Backlash was Raw then Judgement day was smackdown the Raw had the next PPV the Smackdown ect. This was good because I wasnt a fan of Raw so I didnt have to pay to see matches i didnt want to. They could still charge large prices for the PPVs because if your gonna buy 1 you probably wont buy the other. Story lines are too rushed now and you cant get fully invested in a big match.

 

[TLK]

The problem with splitting the PPVs was that you ended up getting a bunch of lackluster events. I can recall most of the Smackdown PPVs being simply dreadful, because you sat through Kenzo Suzuki and a bunch of other jobbers that you wouldn't be paying for had the PPVs been multi-branded. The quality of the shows was subpar. Would it be that way now? Perhaps. It really depends on how well the WWE establishes its midcarders because that is where the majority of these uni-brand shows were lacking. It was basically always a one-match show.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I think 12 PPV's a year is fine and I don't have an issue with it, WWE has proven in the past that they can have 12 a year and give each one a proper build to the point you want to see each one (from 97-mid 99 and most of 2002 I watched every PPV because I wanted to for example).

The thing is you don't have to scrap programs every month so a lot of times (especially with Summerslam and Wrestlemania) those PPV's start getting built BEFORE the PPV before it. This year in particular Summerslam was getting built before MITB and Wrestlemania was getting built from Royal Rumble on, if they have intriguing programs that stretch on for months at a time frankly its very easy to build 12 PPV's a year. When storylines start fresh a day after a PPV you still can have up to 4 WEEKS to build that PPV and although it can be tricky it can easily be done without much issue as long as the wrestlers and storylines they come up with can support it and storylines like HHH vs. Punk and Cena vs. Punk make it easy to build from one PPV to the next.

For example with a fresh storyline. They built MITB 3-4 weeks before the event started with no prior build. In those 3-4 weeks they built a PPV that I couldn't wait to see for the Cena vs. Punk match, that's proof right there it can be done, which made Summerslam easy to build to because their feud wasn't over and they had a new avenue to go down so it obviously can in fact work.

There are 52 weeks in a year, that means you can give every PPV at the VERY LEAST 4 weeks to build with 4 weeks left over, so use 2 for Wrestlemania and 2 for Summerslam (their 2 biggest PPV's, Royal Rumble builds itself really with its format). So WM gets 6 weeks, Summerslam gets weeks, all others get 4 weeks and like I said you can take as much time as you want to build any PPV using PPV's before it as a springboard for the next month (like CM Punk vs. Cena and Orton vs. Christian).

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The worst idea would be to go back to single brand PPV's because a majority of them were terrible because the roster just wasn't good enough and half the matches had no business being on PPV. I would just have a PPV a month so you could have four weeks between PPV's. Of course since Wrestlemania is always around the first of April, it could throw things for a loop.

 

[I_Am_Electro_Boy]

Well I personally would rather there be less PPVs because I don't think there is always enough time between PPVs for storylines to develop, but I can see why WWE has so many PPVs and that is because they make money from it, simple. I think maybe 8 PPVs a year would be good (for fans) so there would be a minor PPV in between the "Big Four" and storylines would be able to develop. This is maybe how I would have the PPVs:

Royal Rumble - January

Elimination Chamber - February

Wrestlemania - April

Money In The Bank - May

Summerslam - July

Night Of Champions - August

Survivor Series - October

Vengeance - November

 

[XXJJ]

They just had NOC. Now 2 weeks later they have HITC. Then only 3 weeks after that they have Vengence. That is a lot of ppv's in a short time span. I do agree that it can hurt storylines.

I think that did hurt Over the Limit buyrates. Because it was only a couple of weeks after Extreme Rules. A lot of people just cant afford spending 50 dollars every couple of weeks on WWE ppvs. But they still make money from all their ppv's. Which is their only goal. So I dont really see the reason why they would decrease ppvs.

 

[Dagger Dias]

There is not much that can be done about the number of PPV's. WWE needs the money that they get from these shows. What they CAN do is get rid of some of the pointless ones. Extreme Rules is always awful so it needs to go. Over the Limit and Money In the Bank can each be brought up one month, with King of the Ring being brought back for July. Then to solve the two shows in October issue just get rid of Vengeance or whatever that will be. Chances are it will be as bad as Breaking Point anyway. Having one per month is reasonable because then they have 3 to 4 weeks to build each show rather than the 2 they have between Night of Champions and Hell In a Cell. That's absolutely ridiculous and so is having most of it be rematches.

Here is how it should be:

Janurary - Royal Rumble
February - Elimination Chamber
April - Wrestlemania
May - Over the Limit
June - Money In the Bank
July - King Of the Ring
August - Summerslam
September - Night of Champions
October - Hell In a Cell
November - Survivor Series
December - TLC

This way they each get a month of build other than Wrestlemania which gets a little more for obvious reasons.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Why does King of the Ring need to be brought back? It was an useless PPV for the most part and MITB can achieve what KOTR tried and more often that not failed to do.

 

[@smarkmouth]

It's a slippery slope, really. As some of the posters have pointed out, WWE has their investors to consider. However, I do think there needs to be some change to the pay per view format to satisfy both consumer and investor, and the answer is not adding more events or increasing the cost. It's not an easy problem to solve, but one WWE no doubt considers each day.

That being said, I think it would be healthy to amputate a few pay per views. Yes, the stock would no doubt take a hit, but with no serious competition, they could probably afford to take the risk. I am of the thought that with 8 pay per views per year would be good for both PPV's and Raw/Smackdown. It would force creative to rethink the wheel when it comes to pacing of PPV feuds (necessity is the mother of invention), and also build up TV matches a little better. How great would it be to see something like a two-three week hype for a TV main event? Could help the ratings woes, and hopefully entice PPV buys.

 

[Scuba 06]

WWE needs an offseason. The only real PPVs they really need are the big four. After Wrestlemania ends, the offseason should begin, giving stars 3 to 4 months off, starting the program back up, a few weekers before Summerslam. If they want to have a monthly PPV for the rest of the year, fine but they should make sure to pick the best or most popular ones like an Extreme Rules. So yeah with the offseason about 8 shows a year or so, sounds good to me. I think the wrestlers deserve more time off anyway. Their health is important and I think cutting out the fat, and putting out less will generate greater interest than over-saturating the market with under-built, weak cards every month. Maybe time off will actually give WWE time it needs to better plan out story-lines so they actually have a sense of direction and consider various what if scenarios if certain stars are programs dont work out as desired.

 

[brandonxthomas]

There are way too many PPVs. On top of that everybody knows that they can steal the PPVs online. They need to figure out a better way to market events because I think within a decade PPV will go the way of the buffalo.

 

[HoHo]

I think the PPV's on pure for money, back in the day they were worth something now meh.With the title changes all the time, less PPV's would be better as the huge amount is not helping anything, as the PPV's sometimes don't make the hype they do weeks going into it.