What less appealing: themed PPV's or short time-frames?

[Dum Dum Dudley]

Simple enough question. With HIAC nearly a week away, it appears the next gimmick PPV is on the horizon. Many posters on these forums are not fans of the gimmick PPV but many do manage to pick out one or two matches on the card that either surpass expectations or they actual enjoy. So i started wondering; what's less appealing to the audience; a gimmick PPV or a PPV that quickly follows another? With the two confirmed HIAC matches essentially rematches from NOC, is it the fact that its the same feud repeating itself again albeit in a gimmick match that is making people apprehensive of HIAC or is it the fact it follows hot on the heels of another WWE PPV?

HIAC '09 had a better buy-rate than the PPV it replaced (No Mercy '08) by about 20,000 buys which suggests to me the audience is partially interested in the gimmick PPV but many posters on here felt that HIAC '09 fell flat. Is this because of the gimmicks or because the same feuds (DX/Legacy, Orton/Cena) were continued from the previous PPV over a short period of time? Do people feel the need to miss a gimmick PPV because of the gimmick or because it is quickly following the previous PPV with the same feuds?

 

[TheProfessional]

Honestly, I think having so many PPV's in quick Succession is the Problem for me.
Some Feuds don't get to Develop well.
Or we get Crummy Match Finishes in one PPV because they plan to Wrap it up in the Next one.
I was so Glad that they had Kane beat Undertaker Clean at Night of Champions.
I was afraid that they would have him run off, just to Wrap this up at Hell In a Cell.

But here's my take on the whole Stipulation-PPV ordeal.
I enjoy Specialty matches.
BUT, they seem a lot less exciting when you have the same one THREE times in one match, namely the Hell In a Cell.
Two in one night is passable though, as long as they Matches are exciting. Which not all have been.
The "Brutality, and Destruction" that is supposed to occur in these matches doesn't seem to anymore.
The TLC PPV was decent though. With Exception to the Chairs match.
But the Christian-Benjamin Ladder match was good!

Finally, I must say that Naming the PPV's after the matches is a Dreadful idea.
"No Way Out" sounded MILES better than "Elimination Chamber
and 'We're having a match in Two weeks at Hell in a Cell' doesn't Roll off the Tongue that well. Plus, it's not like everyone is Facing off in that match.

In Conclusion, Space the PPV's out better. Have NO more than 1 a Month.
Give them Actual names, not just after the One or Two matches they have.
And make the matches Exciting and Mean something again!

That's my Rant of the Day

 

[osborne79]

The short time frames are annoying and diesnt give me desire to buy the PPVS as i know the same or very similar match will be at the next PPV with a new stipulation but the themed PPVs are really bugging me, A HELL IN A CELL SHOULD BE USED FOR ENDING A RIVALRY , NOT BEGINNING ONE OR IN BETWEEN ONE, ONE CHAMBER A YEAR IS ENOUGH AND WHOULD BE AT SURVIVOR SERIES HENCE YOU ARE THE SURVIVOR OF THE CHAMBER, THE ONLY GIMMICK PPV I ACTUALLY AGREEE WITH IS TLC AS IT IS A GOOD WAY TO END THE YEAR AND REFRESH THE RIVALRIES/FEUDS

 

[martymcfly]

To me, this question is like asking which of my nuts would I rather have someone kick. Neither option is appealing, it makes no sense either way, and even though some may find brief moments of entertainment, in the end either one is painful and damages the overall product.

 

[silrock316]

See I personally love fueds that span a couple of PPV's but I absolutely HATE PPV's that are 2 weeks apart. I see no point to it other than WWE trying to make more money. Build the matches in a longer span. Don't have the competitors face each other in ANY KIND of match prior to the PPV so the anticipation for the match grows. Which is why I have always liked the "if either wrestler makes contact with the other" they lose the title or their title shot. It adds to the anticipation and I look forward to the matches more. I don't want to order the PPV if I seen the two wrestlers fighting in a tag team match the Raw before the PPV.

 

[tRKOj]

Some themed ppv's are alrite i personally enjoyed HIAC 09 and i like the concept of the HIAC ppv i also like the NOC concept ppv but i think it should end the year not TLC. However, I like the ppv's with real names better like No Way Out, No Mercy, Unforgiven etc.
I thought those ppv names helped tell the story better than a name like Elimination Chamber (I to thought that match should stay at Survivor Series it could be its main match like Royal Rumble) I like the dark concept of HIAC it gives off an evil vibe which i think is somewat kool especially with Kane and Undertaker headlining it.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

Themed Pay-per-views are alright, as long as the feud coming into the pay-per-view has time and build up. If not, your really wasting time.

So my answer is Short time-frames. I hate how one pay-per-view gets a month plus of promoting and build up, and another gets 3 weeks, sometimes even less.

I much rather have 6 weeks in between pay-per-views. That way you have time to build up the card for a good event. I hate week before the pay-per-view made matches. Such as Kofi vs. Ziggler at Summerslam. They had a great feud, but no way to start it.

The main event or events, and mid-card should have plenty of time to be promoted. Especially with Hell in a Cell. Personal favorite of mine. Well, the Hell in a cell match itself. I still cringe when I see a replay and Mick Foley getting thrown into tacks.

 

[LigerBomb]

Fuck, that's like asking which is worse: getting clubbed in the head or kicked in the balls. Can't we just agree they both royally suck/ultimately harmful and say it's common sense to try and avoid both scenarios at all costs?
If I absolutely had to, I'd say I personally would take the theme PPV over shorter time frame build-ups between PPVs. At least with more time in between you can sorta try and make the themed PPV show a better one.

 

[johnseamann]

For me, the problem is the short span, plus the naming of the PPV's, as someone said above.

There is also a particular problem with HIAC more than any other PPV, and it is that in the PG era, a Hell in a Cell match is nothing but a regular match inside of a big steel cage. The whole concept is not very believable anymore.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

Fuck, that's like asking which is worse: getting clubbed in the head or kicked in the balls. Can't we just agree they both royally suck/ultimately harmful and say it's common sense to try and avoid both scenarios at all costs?
If I absolutely had to, I'd say I personally would take the theme PPV over shorter time frame build-ups between PPVs. At least with more time in between you can sorta try and make the themed PPV show a better one.

For me, the problem is the short span, plus the naming of the PPV's, as someone said above.

There is also a particular problem with HIAC more than any other PPV, and it is that in the PG era, a Hell in a Cell match is nothing but a regular match inside of a big steel cage. The whole concept is not very believable anymore.

I agree with you both on this one. I hate doing the lesser of two evils, but I'm going to still stick with short span. Because you can still make a pay-per-view with plenty of time and build up. However a great point was made.

Now on to the Hell in a Cell match. You hit that right on the money. These or the days little blood and brutality, it's pointless to having feuds ending up in this caged match. When I use to watch hell in the cell, you would hear the crowd reaction to every powerful move. Now it's so bland, it really shouldn't be happening.

So now, we are back in the... Which would you rather do.. Make out with a girl who has a mustache that she doesn't notice, or make out with the girl which a strange herpe like bump on your lip.

 

[CyDeez]

I guess comparing the 2...

I would say having too many PPVs is less appealing.

If anything, it is because a gimmick PPV is actually good for feuds IMO. As you said, there are basically 2 rematches signed for HIAC. It keeps a feud going, AND adds a different aspect to it, by having the guys involved in the feud, fighting in another match. With different stipulations, I believe more excitement is combined with the performance of the guys involved to make a feud interesting and/or relevant.

 

[Dum Dum Dudley]

I guess comparing the 2...

I would say having too many PPVs is less appealing.

If anything, it is because a gimmick PPV is actually good for feuds IMO. As you said, there are basically 2 rematches signed for HIAC. It keeps a feud going, AND adds a different aspect to it, by having the guys involved in the feud, fighting in another match. With different stipulations, I believe more excitement is combined with the performance of the guys involved to make a feud interesting and/or relevant.

I agree, i'm not totally against the gimmick PPV but i am against the short time frames. And as you say, a gimmick match is a good way to end a feud or keep it fresh so Sheamus/Orton in a HIAC match isn't that bad because perhaps Miz or Edge might be the next guy Orton goes up against. The only problem i have with certain gimmick PPV's like HIAC is that it overexposes matches like HIAC that are supposed to be done once every blue moon. So if a really intense feud like say HHH/Sheamus ends in a HIAC match, we the audience have already seen 3 of these matches this year so it doesn't come off as being that big a deal.