Would a reduced PPV schedule help or hurt wrestling?

[psykohurricane]

Do you think that if TNA and WWE would have a 6 PPV schedule instead of 12 for TNA and 14 for WWE would help in the buyrate or hurt them? Personally i think that it would help them simply because that would have them to really develop feud going into their PPV instead of just throwing matches on the card or having the same match over and over again.

Here a Example of a PPV schedule for WWE and TNA

WWE : January: Royal Rumble
April: Wrestlemania
June: Night OF Champions
August: Summerslam
October: Extreme Rules
December: Survivor Series

TNA: February: Genesis
March: Destination X
May: Lockdown
July: Hard Justice
September: Victory Road
November: Bound For Glory

So that way everybody get a piece of the action and you got time between PPV to build interesting feud instead of throwaway stuff that gets repeated over and over again.

 

[Pimpin]

I don't think TNA should cut down on the pay per views cause they don't have a brand extention. WWE on the other hand should either cut down on the number of pay per views or start going back to brand exclusive pay per views so there would possibly be more buyrates.

 

[kidmachismo]

I definitely think a reduction in PPV's are in order. But I think PPV's with matches we can't see on normal wwe/tna programming is important also. I stopped ordering these expensive PPVs because not only do they show all the highlights the next night on raw, but they also usually feature rematches also.

 

[Barbedwire Ropes]

Hey if you just simply don't want to "waste" $50 on ordering a PPV
for your home, just head down to the movie theaters and pay $10 to see it instead. Thats what I do, for the WWE anyways. There has yet to be a TNA ppv that has interested me enough to go and order it. But, for the WWE I would just get rid of the non-essential PPVs like Unforgiven, Cyber Sunday and No Mercy.

 

[SavageTaker]

i think a reduction of PPv's in WWE would help the buyrates,but lowering it down to 6 really woudlnt help that much,maybe 10 would help but not six.

I think if TNA lowered their PPv's it would help them tremendously.if they have 6 ppv's they could hype their matches,and i mean all of them.also it gives em a chance to get a higher buyrate.this way they coudld have a ppv every 2 months and they'll have enough time to announce matches,instead of doing it the week of the ppv,which they have done.

If Tna can succeed with 6 ppv's then they can gradually increase they amount of ppvs little by little to around 10-12.

 

[OutsiderDX]

Financially, it would make no sense for the WWE to do less PPV's. If they did half the amount of PPV's that means they would have to double their buyers, which probably isn't going to happen. And dont forget, they would also lose half the amount of DVD's they could sell and rent.

Obviously the buildup to PPV matches would be better *but that is expecting alot these days*

Belonging to blockbuster.com- i rented all the PPVs from 2008 (i think 13). And it was quite impressive how the PPV matches involving Christ Jericho flowed very well / natural / organic from one ppv to the other. (especially during his HBK fued)- but there is no reason that other storylines and wrestlers couldnt do the same.

The problem comes in with too many ppvs is the lack of build up and matches that seem to be thrown together for that one night, they never have a buildup/peak/conclusion.

To do it you just need writers who have attention to detail

 

[KaosTheori]

First I dont think WWE and TNA will agree to that schedule just because they will never agree on anything even if it is for the greater good. As far as PPV ordering, the Hooters down the street from me play wrestling ppv's every month. Just another reason to go to Hooters is all im saying. GIve your local Hooters a call and ask if they do the same. Im sure they do.

B.T.W. Survivor Series in December? No no no no no.
SS is and forever will be a thanksgiving PPV. Im sorry but it had to be said.

 

[bulldog76]

One PPV a month is enough. I think this is where TNA actually gets it right. This year the WWE will end up with 2 April PPVs after going without a PPV for the last 6 weeks. This year from May 17 to July 26 (2 months and 9 days) we get 4 PPVs. Where is the build-up going to be for the last 3 of those 4?

Jericho's storyline has dragged with no PPV in March. Cena's has gotten absurd. Too much time between PPVs. Reducing it to less than 12 will hurt too much financially.

So give each month its own PPV. 4-5 weeks is enough time to be able to sell a match and build/conclude the storyline.

 

[CDR]

Isn't it amazing how there is so many threads that cover the same subjuect. Literally, this is the fifth time I'm about to post what I'm going to post. And that is that there is way to many pay-per-views for the WWE. It's rediculous! On average it leaves just under four weeks to promote a pay-per-view. That's just simply not enough with all the talent that the WWE has. It's far too much. They need to seriously cut down on pay-per-views so that build-up for pay-per-views will be better, thus leading to a better pay-per-view. TNA however, isn't in as bad of shape as WWE. They don't have as many superstars, so it works out better for them. Thw WWE however, seriously needs to reconsider their shows.

 

[rolltide_pisco]

Absolutely need to cut the number of ppv's in half. If you could take 2 to 2 1/2 months to build to a pay-per-view, the anticipation of the show would be tremendous. That's one reason wrestling is not great now. 4-5 week storylines don't cut it anymore.

 

[pepentorresHHH]

i would do this....
Royal Rumble-january
NO Way Out-February
Wrestlemania-March
Backlash-April
Judgmentday-May
Night of Champions- June
the great American Bash- July
Summerslam-August-
Unforgiven-September
No Mercy- October
Survivor Series- November
Armageddon- December
so in essence the PPVs are good the way they are....
but i would really lose 1 maybe 2 but thats stretching....
i would dump No Mercy and if there is no other choice maybe The Great American Bash

 

[ronalddeo]

WWe needs to cut PPV's to atleast 9. They wont as they will loose revenue from dvd sales and etc... The upside would be, there wont be any rushed feuds from 1 ppv to another. Do it like the old days, less ppv, more storytelling, better feuds - get audience hooked, rating rise, more interest in your product. Anyone agree?

 

[D-Man]

I just love when I read these meaningless threads... Everyone thinks they know what's better for the product and how to increase buy rates, and they all suggest cutting down on PPV's?!?!? Come one everyone... think! The WWE is a business. If they cut down on PPV's, they wouldn't make as much money. You're all suggesting that the WWE cuts their PPV's down by 1/2... that means they would have to DOUBLE the buy rates in their remaining PPV's. People, this is NEVER going to happen.

The WWE is a profitable company. And I know that there was a time not too long ago when the company was even MORE profitable. We all beg for the late 1990's to come back but we all need to face facts... it isn't going to happen. As much all the IWC loves to bitch and moan about the product, you are all glued to the TV every Monday, Friday, and some Tuesdays. And most of you buy the PPV's every month. This is how the WWE thinks as a business. They are a company that does their best to balance making the best and most entertaining product as well as constantly make money. You all think building storylines for an extra month is going to get more people to buy the product??? No f'in way. People either like wrestling, buy the PPV's and watch them, or they pay no mind, pay no money for PPV's, and turn off the TV when it's on... plain and simple.

The only way the WWE will increase buy rates is by doing their best to prove to the world that professional wrestling is not all about drugs, steroids, crappy acting, and trying to convince people that the product is "real." Once the rest of the world see the product like we do (as nothing more than entertainment) and they suspend their disbelief when they watch like we all do, we'll finally see the numbers we all hope for.

 

[Mark0820]

I think a reduction in PPV costs would help wrestling. $44-$50 for one with a weak card is why the buyrates have tanked.

 

[D-Man]

I think a reduction in PPV costs would help wrestling. $44-$50 for one with a weak card is why the buyrates have tanked.

I do agree with this statement. However, it depends on how drastically the WWE would be willing to reduce the price. I, for one, don't think it would make a difference if the PPV's were $30 compared to $44-$50. But, if the WWE reduced PPV's to $19.95, I'm sure many people would buy them. But, this brings me back to my original point... if you reduce the PPV cost by 50%, that means the amount of buys would have to increase by 50%. As a business, this has a great chance of NOT happening. Therefore, the company would lose money.

 

[Shorty]

But shouldn't businesses focus on quality and not just quantity? If they keep putting out as much crap as they can the WWE is going to be like a fad to people-you're all about buying it for awhile, but its around so much you get tired of it and forget about it.

I don't think 6 PPV's is a good idea, but maybe around 10 would be fine. Then people wouldn't be bothered by the prices.

 

[Mark0820]

I do agree with this statement. However, it depends on how drastically the WWE would be willing to reduce the price. I, for one, don't think it would make a difference if the PPV's were $30 compared to $44-$50. But, if the WWE reduced PPV's to $19.95, I'm sure many people would buy them. But, this brings me back to my original point... if you reduce the PPV cost by 50%, that means the amount of buys would have to increase by 50%. As a business, this has a great chance of NOT happening. Therefore, the company would lose money.

When they were $24-29.95 I was ordering them all. Now I only order the big four if they have good cards. They don't have to go to half, but a reduction wouldn't hurt. The Royal Rumble was $49.95 and it really wasn't that good. WM I'm only considering ordering right now because it's WM25. The card is kinda meh right now. Both need to happen, better cards/feuds and a price reduction. People are going away because they simply can't afford a PPV to get the same match they get for free on tv.

 

[Black Snow]

I would just cut it from the 14 they're at now to 12. One a month is very managable and the only times I really feel overstuffed are the two times a year the WWE crams in an extra PPV (May-July and Sept-Nov.) Dump either Extreme Rules or Night of Champions along with Cyber Sunday and we're good to go.

 

[psykohurricane]

Out of the 14 WWE ppv that are schedule, i would eliminate 3 of them, The first one would be Backlash and the reason is simple, it just a lite version of wrestlemania and the fact that it's book so close to wrestlemania doesn'T help the buyrate. Next Would be Judgment day no real reason outside the fact that i don'T see the purpuse of this PPV. LAst but not less, No Mercy again because it doesn'T change anything.

Also, i do miss the brand only ppv for the simple fact that i didn'T have to watch the same guys on PPV every month, i got nothing against HHH, Cena, Orton and all the other main eventers, but it would be fun to see some of the lower card wrestlers on PPV. Guys Like Jimmy Wang Yang, Jesse and Festus and Evan Bourne never gets on PPV because it'S always the same group of guys getting the ppv spots at less with the brand only PPv, it left space for guys that don't always get to wrestle on PPV and made the reasoning behind having 2 sets of title seem somewhat normal.

 

[bulldog76]

Here is the problem with everyone wanting to cut to less than 12. You lose money. Go look at either companies worst PPV buy rates and see that they still sell quite a few. And those sells are probably just domestic sales. Plus DVD sales. Plus, if you aren't bombarding your fans with a PPV every month, you could easily lose steam if your competitor puts together a great PPV.

There have been some very good and sound arguments made. But the money trumps. If you are TNA you don't want to lose ground to the WWE. If your WWE, you don't want to let TNA get any significant momentum.

 

[nbda1997]

Although WWE has branched off into many areas in terms of the products they offer, I think that PPV buys still represent a large portion of their revenue stream. The downside of expanding the way WWE has over the last 20 years is that your cost of doing business is much, much higher. Although having close to one PPV per month isn't optimal from a creative sense, having less PPV's may almost be like removing several quarts of blood from your body and then running a marathon.

I certainly don't purchase every WWE event, but I'm sure there still are many who do. I'd be willing to bet this is a huge factor in keeping WWE in business.

 

[GameOver]

NO way would WWE give any time to TNA first off, how would that help them?

Also i don't think we can go back to the old 6 PPVs a yr too many people with no attention span couldn't last that long. And taking twice aslong to build up a storyline doesn't make it any better, what is better is better use of the time given.

Better idea, have 11 get rid of armageddon. and concentrate on Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series the PPV's in between can build up to matches at one of the big 4.

So for instance Royal Rumble, No Way Out are building upto WrestleMania, which is what happens now.,

Then Backlash could be moved back 1 month so theres a 2month gap for the rematches from WrestleMania, then there's another month gap til SummerSlam, then 2 month build up to Survivor Series and December off to start all over again afresh in the road to wrestlemania

Schedule january - RR
February - NWO
March - WrestleMania
April - PPV Build up to Backlash
May Backlash
June - King Of The Ring
July - PPV Build up to SummerSlam
August - SummerSlam
Sept/October - in betweeners
November - SurvivorSeries
December - Xmas Break