Which WWE PPV's would you cut & keep?

[CM Steel]

WWE has 12 pay per-views a year. That's a PPV a month. We have the big four, the gimmick PPV's, and the regular PPV's (Payback, Over the Limit). Now all these PPV's cost some serious $$$ every month. $40-$45 plus tax and around $65 plus tax for Wrestlemania. But paying for 12 PPV's a year is just too much in this bad economy here in the U.S. But with that being said. Which WWE PPV's would you cut & keep?

Let's take a look at the WWE PPV schedule for 2013 shall we?...

Jan: Royal Rumble
Feb: Elimination Chamber
Mar: Wrestlemania
Apr: Extreme Rules
May: Payback
June: Money in the Bank
July/Aug: Summerslam
Sept/Oct: Night of Champions
Oct/Nov: Over the Limit
Nov: Survivor Series
Dec: TLC


My choice would be for right now would be to cut Payback and Over the Limit. They are on the same PPV level as Fatal Four-Way, Capital Punishment, and Breaking Point. Three defunct WWE PPV's. I mean if you were down to your last $50, what would you do with it? Buy a WWE PPV or take your family out to dinner? So in your opinion. Which WWE PPV's would you cut & keep?

 

[The Butcher]

Anybody who's down to their last 50 bucks and spends it on a wrestling pay-per-view should be sterilized and have whatever children they do have turned over to CPS.

Sure, from a fan's perspective, WWE has too many PPVs at too high a cost. From WWE's point of view, however, if all 12 shows are profitable, why would they want to cut any? If I'm being given the power to cut PPVs, then that means I'm running WWE. And if I'm running WWE, I'm maximizing my profits. I'd keep them all and just change up the names from time-to-time, exactly like they do now.

 

[Diet Soda]

The problem with cutting down the number of pay per views is that the gap between events becomes too long and the WWE creative staff don't know how to full the extra time productively.

Take the longer than usual gap between Wrestlemania and Extreme Rules for example, the additional two weeks of television time was just padded out with the same rematches and squashes that we've been subjected to countless times before. Same goes for this year's pre-Mania season.

Instead of anticipation, we feel boredom. Instead of hype, we feel impatience.

The remedy to this is not to cut the number of PPVs, but keep the gimmicks and the themes fresh whilst being concurrent with the ongoing storylines to ensure fans have got something to look forward to.

 

[vampxx24]

Anybody who's down to their last 50 bucks and spends it on a wrestling pay-per-view should be sterilized and have whatever children they do have turned over to CPS.

Sure, from a fan's perspective, WWE has too many PPVs at too high a cost. From WWE's point of view, however, if all 12 shows are profitable, why would they want to cut any? If I'm being given the power to cut PPVs, then that means I'm running WWE. And if I'm running WWE, I'm maximizing my profits. I'd keep them all and just change up the names from time-to-time, exactly like they do now.

i havnt seen 2012's monthly buys but going by 2011 , there not profitable. vince and dana white did an interview a year or 2 ago where they discuss how ppv works and why orgs are scared to do ppv or do ppv and end up bankrupt. To do a successful ppv , as in..actually make a profit, the ppv has to do ATLEAST 450k buys. 450 is the mark because by the time you pay the staff, the arena cost, the set cost and the broadcaster cost 450k is where you start to go into the green. 2011 was the year as well where it was announced wwe lost something like 500 million in revenue and this is def why. only 3 ppv came in over 450, being suvivor series, rumble and mania.

why do you think tna decided to cut back on ppv's? they were bleediing money from running 12, esp doing the numbers they were rumored to be doing. if wwe went back to doing the major 4, or even did 6 the buyrates would probably go up.

you have to remember things arre different now with the economy and how wrestling is viewed as a whole. people are not going to just shell out the 50-70 for a ppv. Wrestlemania gets huge buyrates because its a on a mass mainstream market so even casuals will buy the ppv. You have to also consider the fact that aside from wwe ppv, you have boxing fights that people will buy , esp if its pac or mayweather and with the rise of mma thats another 45-60 dollars people have to spend. whether wrestling fans like it or not, alot of the audience is being lost to boxing/mma as wrestling is viewed as fake and people whether spend their money on a real sport.

so to answer should they? if no one is hitting the panic button yet then obviously theres no need. however, a rise in ppv buyrates would likely be seen if they reduced to 4-6 as history shows their major ppvs do sell and they wouldnt be losing money from the rest. with cutting the amount of ppvs this would make people more likely to buy the eventual ppv instead of having the monthly debate of "should i or shouldnt i or should i order the wrestling ppv or the fight".. you have to remember ideally, with ppvs cut it gives more time to build fueds like in the old day. More established fueds increases intrest in the buyers. this hasnt worked with TNA however( and im not a tna hater) because they still fail to put interest into anything other than hogan and Aces and 8's so the mid and lower cards have basically zero focus on them.

 

[Dagger Dias]

This topic sure comes up a lot, but we have not had it in a while so I will chime in. Taking a look at each PPV brand currently on the schedule for this year:




ROYAL RUMBLE
KEEP.
Why: Historical value and it deals with Wrestlemania match contendership.


ELIMINATION CHAMBER
KEEP.
Why: It helps set up the Wrestlemania world title matches and it's a good match type that I don't mind being exclusive to one show. You know what to expect with this brand.


WRESTLEMANIA
KEEP.
Why: Do I even need to answer that? Biggest show of the year. Anyone who cuts Wrestlemania is trolling.


EXTREME RULES
CUT.
Why: It's no secret around here that this is my least favorite PPV brand. The show is meant to be "extreme" but there's NOTHING "extreme" about it. The "night WWE goes extreme" is nothing that TLC can't accomplish in my opinion, due to its matches allowing the use of weapons. Plus I'm rarely interested in Wrestlemania rematches. Get rid of this and move Over the Limit to this PPV slot.


PAYBACK
CUT? (depending on how this show goes)
Why: I'll reserve a full decision on this show until I have seen it. I doubt it will be anything spectacular and it will end up joining brands like Captiol Punishment or Breaking Point that never came back. They need to separate this brand from the others somehow and unless that happens, there's really little point in keeping it. Bring back King of the Ring for this slot with the winner getting a Summerslam title shot to build them up all summer.


MONEY IN THE BANK
KEEP.
Why: Awesome match type that I look forward to every year. Despite how some may want to see this match become Wrestlemania exclusive again, MITB does very well each year and it's quickly growing into a rather important PPV brand. I say keep it around and let it continue to gain prestige each year.


SUMMERSLAM
KEEP.
Why: Historical value. It's the second biggest show of the year and there is a TON of history behind this PPV brand. It usually delivers a solid show and it is the highlight of each summer. Now, if only they would stop having it at the Staples Center each year....Seriously, this year marks the 5th year in a row that Summerslam takes place there.


NIGHT OF CHAMPIONS
KEEP.
Why: I love this brand. It should always be all about the titles at every show and this is the one night of the year that every single title gets defended at once. I'd also add that the MITB winners should defend their briefcases if they have not cashed in yet. They can defend them in match stipulations they get to choose though, that way they do not have to do the MITB Ladder match again when they already went through that, making it unfair to put them through it again when they already won. It gives the chance for more match types to be showcased too and it prevents pointless non-title matches no one cares about from making it onto the card for this event.


HELL IN A CELL
KEEP.
Why: It's a popular match type so having this show makes sense, you know what to expect. They DO however need to change up the quality. You can't just throw together a lazily booked feud leading into a Hell In a Cell match. Make the fans care. Also, make it the ONLY October PPV. I cannot fathom why WWE keeps trying to do 2 shows in October and still wonder why neither does well.


OVER THE LIMIT
KEEP, BUT MOVE.
Why: This show I really don't mind, although I seem to be in the minority. It is a little more open as to what match types it can showcase. Iron Man, Last Man Standing, I Quit, and 3 Stages of Hell are all potentials. They take the contenders "over the limit" as the name implies. I don't see why they moved it to October though, that was a bad decision. I guarantee it will be the least successful show this year due to that. I'd move it to where Extreme Rules is and keep it so that we have a show where it doesn't necessarily have a stipulation it HAS to have, but still can stand out from the other brands a bit.


SURVIVOR SERIES
KEEP.
Why: Historical value. However, they REALLY need to do a better job of making us care about the traditional elimination matches. Also, do more of them!!!! I can understand doing the two world title matches and some type of filler in between, but they honestly should use this show to take advantage of the opportunity to showcase wrestlers who otherwise might not make it onto a card. Let them show the fans what they can do in the traditional elimination matches, if the fans like them it could lead to a push. That includes the divas too. I'd make an elimination match featuring them an annual part of the show. I know most of them suck, but they deserve to make it onto a PPV card too, maybe one of them will surprise the fans by doing better than expected and earn a push in the process. It's possible.... stranger things have happened.


TLC
KEEP.
Why: Another one I really like. You get 4 match types in one. Tables, Ladders, Chairs, and of course TLC! It's a great way to finish off the year so I definitely think it needs to stick around.


So.... here is how my PPV calendar would look:

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

This way they still get a PPV in each month other than Wrestlemania which gets 2 months of build. There is no longer an issue of two PPV's in October after Over the Limit gets moved back to the spring and it replaces the pointless Extreme Rules brand. There is also the return of King of the Ring after the (likely) failure of the Payback brand. This is a PPV schedule that I would support. I doubt it would happen though as I don't see Extreme Rules going anywhere and WWE for whatever reason is determined to have 2 shows each October.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

This topic sure comes up a lot

This topic ALWAYS comes up. But the WZ powers that be don't give the OP's warning or points...though when someone posts an interesting spin on an old topic, they get "in trouble" for repeating topics. This PPV topic has been beaten to death.

I like how the OP said "12 a year...that's one per month" Like it's a coincidence. NOOO They do one a month, which adds up to 12 a year. Idiot....go take your last $50 (great job in life, by the way) and spend it on a PPV. Something tells me people who can't afford wrestling PPVs don't get laid anyway and don't have families to feed instead.

Creative is handcuffed by all of the PPVs. I won't give them any undue credit; but, they don't have a real chance to show what they could do with a patient Vince and/or fanbase. Macho/Hogan was a year-long plan and was beautiful! You couldn't even approach that nowadays...I mean you can tell the people they care about Rock/Cena a year in advance, but that is hardly the same thing. People buy monthly PPVs, so Vince and Co. have no reason to stop them. The same people who bitch that there are too many PPVs buy all of them, contributing to their own problem. Most PPVs are $50 Raws anyway. I read the results sometimes and never think "wish I saw that" because a) I probably have before and b) probably will again.

Personally, I would pay $100 each for 4 PPVs if they were Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series. Ideally, they would have programs with payoffs and set up new long-term feuds. BUT that can NOT happen these days. Those long-term programs were setup by a couple of hours of wrestling a week. Now, you have 3 hours on Monday, 2 on Friday, Saturday Morning, NXT, whatever the hell else...you can't fill all of those hours and keep interest.

You are fighting a losing battle. But, given your opening, this is probably not a rare occurence for you. Enjoy Arby's tonight!

 

[Dagger Dias]

This topic ALWAYS comes up. But the WZ powers that be don't give the OP's warning or points...though when someone posts an interesting spin on an old topic, they get "in trouble" for repeating topics. This PPV topic has been beaten to death.

It may be a common topic, but as long as the poster waits a month before making the new topic it's fine. The duplicate topics happen within a month of each other which is against the rules. Go on and tell me where the last time this topic came up in the past month was. It's ok, I'll wait.

Find it? I didn't think so. This topic, which WWE PPV brand would you keep/cut (as in ALL of the shows on the roster, not just one particular brand or just the gimmick ones) has not come up in the past month, he did not break a rule and thus this thread is not a duplicate.

Personally, I would pay $100 each for 4 PPVs if they were Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series. Ideally, they would have programs with payoffs and set up new long-term feuds. BUT that can NOT happen these days.

While I disagree with your opinion on the duplicate topics rule, you're right about how going back to The Big 4 only is not going to happen. The WWE sees having more PPV events as too lucrative of a possibility to pass up on continuing. Having a monthly PPV is completely fine as long as they make the fans care. The shows need to each stand out from the rest and have something unique about them that convinces the fanbase to purchase them. Why should I buy Payback when there's nothing at the moment separating it from Extreme Rules, for example? With Money In the Bank, TLC, and Night of Champions you know exactly what's coming. I personally do not want it to go back to just the Big 4. You have to look ahead toward what other brands may earn prestige if kept around.

 

[King Patrick Star]

At one point in time, there were 15 PPVs, the Big 4, 5 for Raw, 5 for Smackdown, 1 for ECW, and I thought that was 3 too much. I think 12 PPVs a year, once a month, are fine. I wouldn’t reduce the current number, but I would change one. Though it’s my favorite theme for a PPV, I would replace Night Of Champions with any other previously used or brand new PPV name and theme, but in turn, I would also like to see every Championship in the WWE defended at every PPV, no exceptions.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Pretty much all of them. I would keep it as close to every other month as possible.

I would keep

Royal Rumble (Jan)

Wrestlemania (late mar/early apr)

Hell In A Cell (mid-may....would work better to blow off feuds)

June(last weekend, unless the 4th or July is on a weekend, then first weekend in July) -Great American Bash - This would always be held at a baseball stadium, even if it be a minor league one or a college baseball stadium, so as to lessen the need to sell tix (with field seating, you would likely get in the 10,000 to 14,000 range)

August - SummerSlam

October - Halloween Havoc

Nov(sunday before or after thanksgiving, or thanksgiving eve, for that matter) - Survivor Series

Dec (last weekend of Dec) - Starrcade

Give them more build time, make PPV feel more valued, and have more weight. The last thing WWE needs is MORE filler, which is what 75% of their porgramming presently is. Instead of 9 "B" shows, put out 7 "A" shows and one "A+++"

 

[AnthonyM4]

I would do six ppvs a year. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Money in the Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, and Survivor Series. For Money in the Bank, I'd have the winners getting title shots at summerslam(much like the winner of Royal Rumble getting a shot at wrestlemania) and I'd put Night of Champions as the last ppv of the year. I'd get rid of everything else. Every other event that I'd cut as a ppv, I would make it a special Raw episode.

 

[Redemption-2012]

The only current pay-per-view I would cut is whatever they going on in June. June is typically one of WWE's down months where nothing interesting happens as shown by history. The shows such as Capitol punishment, No way out last year and now Payback will all likely go down as very forgettable shows. I don't remember any wrestling fan ever saying they can remember a June PPV that has been great.

I would like to see June PPV's cut and just have more build up for Money in the Bank. I am fine with the rest because it gives the fans something to look to.

 

[EastCoastFan]

I would love to do a major slice-and-dice on the amount of WWE programming there is. They're more interested in making money than having a quality product.

For the PPV's, I'd cut it down to the Big Four (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series) plus 2-4 other PPV shows. It's not 1998 anymore when wrestling was white hot, when they could easily do monthly PPV's and they'd all sell.

 

[Trollol]

Keep: RR, WM, June PPV (rename to KOTR), SS, SS

Get rid of: Everything else

Leave 1 MITB match for WM, maybe an EC match for Survivor Series, allow the MITB winner to challenge any of the champs same with EC and RR. Actually build your storylines. If there is one thing TNA did well it was the payoff on Bully Ray being head of Aces and Eights

 

[Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!]

I think the WWE should rename the PPV's. I hate the "Money In The Bank", "Hell In A Cell", "Elimination Chamber", and "Extreme Rules." Those names don't cut it for me, it is bland and it's not special like "Judgement Day" or "Unforgiving." Another thing is the price for these show's, They want the fan to spend $45 for a crappy show while this economy is shit! They need to lower these prices. I agree with some people, besides the big 4, make special Raw episodes. In that case, it will make Raw interesting and people will tune in.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

My only thing with cutting PPV's is WWE in the past has shown they have what it takes to do 12 PPV's a year and keep them interesting so I don't know if I would cut any.

What I would do though is cut back on gimmick PPV's so I would get rid of Extreme Rules, HIAC, MITB and TLC. I don't feel these matches should be annual gimmicks and should be used sparingly. I just don't like the idea of having a gimmick match for the sake of a gimmick match, it takes away from the gimmick. I would keep Elimination Chamber and use it as a second Rumble (which is basically what they do now) where the winner would get the other title shot at Wrestlemania.

There really isn't an issue with 12 PPV's in my opinion but if they could do it a little better that would be great. It seems like through a calender year the main events are often show the same matches in consecutive PPV's. That's ok sometimes but if the champ beats the challenger clean then that should be the end of it, they shouldn't wrestle the next 2-3 PPV's and it just makes the PPV's more boring. It's not so much the amount of PPV's but it feels like there are really 5 PPV's a year and the rest are a repeat of those 5 PPV's. Don't cut back just freshen the PPV content up each month.

 

[Da Solo]

Keep:
The big 4 (WM, Rumble, Summerslam, Survivor Series) because they're the big 4, it's been that way and should stay that way. Rumble and Survivor series are the few good gimmick PPV's left

Night of Champions because the premise and concepts are pretty good, with all titles being defended. It forces them to care about titles that are getting neglected at the time. Plus, it just sounds cool

Money in the Bank because after the great showings it has put on in the past few years, it deserves its own PPV. Cena vs. Punk, Punk vs. Bryan, Kane's MitB win and cash in and Bryan's MiTB win have all been moments of the year in their own right.

Elimination Chamber because it makes Wrestlemania look that much more important when the most dangerous match type in the books is a prelude to the grandest stage of them all.

Extreme Rules because it always makes up for whatever WM missed. I say move it away from WM though, because it looks bad when both WM27 and WM29 were outshined by the ER that followed it.

Cut/Replace:

Over the Limit because the name is just corny and is the absolute definition of a filler PPV. I've rarely cared for an OTL since it's inception. Replace it with Bragging Rights, but do RAW GM vs. Smackdown GM: have them pick their superstars and brawl it out for some prize or benefit since the brand split is dead.

TLC, not because it's bad, but because the gimmick seems like a rip off of Extreme Rules, and a TLC match should not be limited to a single event. The PPV's themselves have all been good (Shield vs. Ryback/Hell No was still my 2012 Match of the Year), but the concept can go. Replace it with Judgement Day or Armageddon. Fitting for the end of the year.

Hell in a Cell because it totally watered down the concept. HiaC's should be the end-all grudge match if anything, and seeing thrown together #1 Contender vs. Champion matches like Ryback vs. Punk does it no justice. Replace it with King of the Ring.

On a side note, I've yet to make a decision on Payback since I haven't seen it yet, but I expect it to be good.

 

[stingray3522]

I would drop 4 so you could build toward the bigger PPV's. Plus bring back some better ones.

Jan- Royal Rumble
Mar- Wrestle Mania(Bring MITB Back)
April- Payback
June- King of the Ring(Winner gets WWE or WHC Title shot at Summer Slam)
July- Great American Bash
Aug- Summer Slam
Sept- Night of Champions
Nov- Survivor Series(War Games)

 

[tom9422]

Keep the Big 4, thats doesn't even need to be explained.

Night of Champions is nice because all the titles are on display.

Keep Money in the Bank, it's usually a good PPV and its a good way to give 1 or 2 guys big push.

Get rid of all the gimmick PPV's except Extreme Rules, that includes TLC, Chamber and Hell in a Cell. All they do is degrade those match types and make it so they aren't a huge thing. Those match stipulations should be saved to take a feud to the next level, not because some shitty feud falls around that time of year. Extreme Rules doesn't really count because its generally a good PPV with a bunch of stipulation matches.

The other ones don't really matter. Whether it's called "Payback", or "Vengeance" or "Judgment Day", its just a name, it has zero effect on the content of the PPV.

i havnt seen 2012's monthly buys but going by 2011 , there not profitable. vince and dana white did an interview a year or 2 ago where they discuss how ppv works and why orgs are scared to do ppv or do ppv and end up bankrupt. To do a successful ppv , as in..actually make a profit, the ppv has to do ATLEAST 450k buys. 450 is the mark because by the time you pay the staff, the arena cost, the set cost and the broadcaster cost 450k is where you start to go into the green. 2011 was the year as well where it was announced wwe lost something like 500 million in revenue and this is def why. only 3 ppv came in over 450, being suvivor series, rumble and mania.

why do you think tna decided to cut back on ppv's? they were bleediing money from running 12, esp doing the numbers they were rumored to be doing. if wwe went back to doing the major 4, or even did 6 the buyrates would probably go up.

That's not true at all, in fact, one of the reasons WWE likes PPV's is because they don't really cost much more than your average Monday Night Raw, except they have like 200,000 people paying to see it.

 

[Quinn30Colo]

Pretty much all of them. I would keep it as close to every other month as possible.

I would keep

Royal Rumble (Jan)

Wrestlemania (late mar/early apr)

Hell In A Cell (mid-may....would work better to blow off feuds)

June(last weekend, unless the 4th or July is on a weekend, then first weekend in July) -Great American Bash - This would always be held at a baseball stadium, even if it be a minor league one or a college baseball stadium, so as to lessen the need to sell tix (with field seating, you would likely get in the 10,000 to 14,000 range)

August - SummerSlam

October - Halloween Havoc

Nov(sunday before or after thanksgiving, or thanksgiving eve, for that matter) - Survivor Series

Dec (last weekend of Dec) - Starrcade

Give them more build time, make PPV feel more valued, and have more weight. The last thing WWE needs is MORE filler, which is what 75% of their porgramming presently is. Instead of 9 "B" shows, put out 7 "A" shows and one "A+++"

I think you have the best idea yet. I'd like to add that the survivor series should have the traditional team elimination bouts as well as the elimination chamber for the titles. It's a good use for them since the survivor wins the title. I noticed you got rid of TLC and MITB, while we're at it I think you should get rid of HITC as well....Replace that with Night of Champions,or title it Clash of the Champions as the NWA/WCW did back in the 90s. I'm not a fan of gimmick title PPV's. I love MITB at Mania. And the baseball stadium idea is very cool for the Bash, just prey for no rain

 

[Max_Power]

Late January: Royal Rumble:
Nothing needs to be said really

Mid February: No Way Out:
Drop the Elimination Chamber name and return it to No Way Out. This way they can keep the Elimination Chamber matches if they want or instead chop them out for a Steel Cage match. It's a good PPV to lead up to WrestleMania

Late March/Early April: WrestleMania:
Obvious - *Money in the Bank Ladder Match returns to one sole 8 man Ladder Match.

Early/Mid May: Backlash/Payback:
Either one of those names but basically either the blow-off to the WrestleMania feuds or the beginning of new feuds, which may have started at or after WrestleMania.

Early/Mid June: King of the Ring: Basically now the start or the continuation of feuds towards Summerslam. 32 man tournament with 2 SF Matches on the undercard with the Final later on in the night.

Late July/Early August: Summerslam seems to be the neglected Big 4 PPV so in my opinion they give it a solid 6-8 weeks following King of the Ring to build.

Early September: Great American Bash:
Basically the blow-off from Summerslam/beginning of new feuds to build towards SS - plus I loved the American Bash theme.

Early October: Unforgiven:
Basically the replacement for Hell in a Cell. The name still fits the Hell in a Cell theme but, if like last year, something unexpected happens to what would be the mainevent, the WWE aren't tied into forcing someone into a pointless Hell in a Cell Match.

Mid November: Survivor Series:
Can be a very good PPV if built properly - needs more meaningful traditional SS Tag Team Matches.

Mid December: TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs:
In my opinion a great way to end the year which is always a fun PPV. They only need one 'extreme' themed PPV per year.

In terms of PPV buy numbers - if the actual quality of matches/storylines improves because of the extended build, you could predict that that would = higher buyrates. With the submission of two PPV's, the WWE has the option to raise the cost of PPV's from $44.95 to $49.95. Combine those two factors and the WWE actually doesn't lose any money.

 

[THE Great GAMMA]

Keep the big four

And keep MITB and add King of the Ring.

PPVs Like HITC and EC have diminished the spectacle of those matches. Use HIAC only for the ending of a big long feud. Use EC even more sparingly.

The reason you keep MITB and KOTR is because along with the RR they set up a Challenger for the next of the Big 4

RR leads to Mania
KOTR leads to Summerslam
MITB leads to Survivor Series

This way you have 6 PPVs with two month builds each and creative can come up with decent storylines/rivalries to justify spending the $50 on the PPV. (i'm gona give them the benefit of the doubt here)

But the one variable that we need to take into account is the fan. Do we as fans, in this time of instant gratification, have the patients for a two month build for a fued? do we have the ability to concentrate for longer matches with bigger pay offs?

Because if we don't then cutting the amount of PPVs doesn't make any sense because the fans will just get bored because a storyline isn't wrapped up or given a partial playoff in a month.

 

[kadroan]

The problem with cutting down the number of pay per views is that the gap between events becomes too long and the WWE creative staff don't know how to full the extra time productively.

Take the longer than usual gap between Wrestlemania and Extreme Rules for example, the additional two weeks of television time was just padded out with the same rematches and squashes that we've been subjected to countless times before. Same goes for this year's pre-Mania season.

Instead of anticipation, we feel boredom. Instead of hype, we feel impatience.

The remedy to this is not to cut the number of PPVs, but keep the gimmicks and the themes fresh whilst being concurrent with the ongoing storylines to ensure fans have got something to look forward to.

I agree. I believe that's what hurt the Del Rio/Swagger feud for Wrestlemania