Would fewer PPVs help the WWE?

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

There are 13 PPV events scheduled for the 2010 calendar year. That makes one per month, with two in the month of December. 9 of these PPVs are based around a gimmick like the Money in the Bank ladder match, or the Survivor Series elimination match. I have a theory that if WWE cut the schedule down to about 8 per year, it would actually help the overall product. The cons of the idea are short-term, and are that we the fans will obviously see less PPV events, and of course WWE would lose PPV buys. But let's think about this for a minute...

There are very few people who will buy all 11 PPV events in 2010. There are many people like myself who just can't afford to do so, and end up downloading over half the PPVs the next day for free. If I had $500 to spend every year, I would do it. If you only have 7 or 8 in a single year, everybody will flock to them. Instead of picking and choosing your 7 for the year, you get to watch all the huge events. In this way, I actually think the buy rates will go up, and probably cut down on the amount of people who either torrent the event or catch a live stream.

If you don't have a PPV every single month, it will force the creative staff to come up with awesome angles and ideas that can last for more than 4 weeks. We're not going to see the same bouts repeated every single month with minimal changes to the card. You won't see the entire Wrestlemania card replicated for Extreme Rules (Backlash). I honestly think this would cut down lazy booking and give us more entertaining weekly programming to look forward to. RIght now I think the writers are just scrambling, trying to come up with things to fit into a 4 week time frame. Imagine having two months to work an angle before the big match at the climax!

So, my questions to you are...

1.) Do you think fewer PPVs in the year would help or hurt the WWE
2.) Is it a good idea or a bad idea from the perspective of a fan
3.) How many PPVs would you have, and which ones would you keep (or bring back)

 

[#hamler]

1) I believe the purposes of PPVs are for Big matches. Matches you wouldn't normally see on cable tv. Having less PPVs would mean less title matches. This can be good, but also a bad thing. Having fewer title matches means longer reigns and titles would change hands less. Bringing back the emotion of winning a title which we never get these daysm woukd also bring back the pristige to every title in the WWE. However, having less PPVs, like 8 a year would mean pointless feuds. You cannot end a feud on RAW or Smackdown. You need PPVs to end fueds and set up big matches for the ending of those fuieds. Even if you extended a fued until the next PPV, people would get bored and the fued would lose momentum before even getting to the PPV. You mentioned how great it'd be to have two months worth of biuld up to a match. Most feuds last more than four weeks anyways, they usually end after two or three matches at a ppv. The ppvs in the middle of feuds like this are to extend the feuds. Momentum will slow then raise again after the ppvs in the middle of feuds that last two or three months.

2) In the perspective of the fan, it woukd still be a bad idea. Again, story lines and feuds would grow old and boring before ending in a huge, gimmicky matchat a PPV. Even if they will have money to buy fewer PPVs, they wouldn't always want to after long fueds.

3) If they were to cut down to eight, no doubt keep Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble and Summerslam. Id also keep Night of Champions, Survivor Series, Bragging Rights, and bring back some traditional NON gimmick PPVs.

 

[MMK]

WRESTLEMANIA should be like the season finale in WWE. The World Series, the Super Bowl, The Stanley Cup, etc. After Mania, WWE should have an off season. This would give wrestlers a time to rest and recuperate, which is important when you think of how many wrestlers deaths have come from working injured. But this idea would also give the creative team time to come up with new storylines/rivalries/matches for the coming season.

My schedule would be the same as it is now, only no PPV or TV events in April/May. Wrestlemania at the end of March would be the season finale and then WWE would be off for 2 months. And I'd have them return in June with the King Of The Ring to kick off the next season.

So to answer the 3 questions asked....
1.) Do you think fewer PPVs in the year would help or hurt the WWE?
It would help the wrestlers recover and give the creative team time to come up with new ideas. But Vince would make slightly less money. So basically it would help everyone but him. And his bottom dollar is all he really cares about.

2.) Is it a good idea or a bad idea from the perspective of a fan?
Most fans would be understandable, and quite frankly, in favor of the idea of the Wrestlers getting time off. A rejuvenated roster and creative team would only lead to a better product. Fans should want QUALITY, not QUANTITY. Plus fans would be super psyched when WWE came back on the air after being away for a while. No different then how sports fans get excited for the start of a new football/hockey/basketball season.

3.) How many PPVs would you have, and which ones would you keep (or bring back)?
I would have 10. April/May would be the off season, and thus the only two months without a ppv. No television either. RAW/SMACKDOWN would have a season finale and season premiere just like any other television series.

 

[TxKxAx]

Honestly, I think they'd be better off keeping 12 a year, but going to the original post-draft format.

With only 4 cross-branded PPVs a year. The rest are single branded, gives the talent on each show more time to shine. Those were the good old days of the "post-attitude era" They only cross promoted for the big shows, everything else was singular. The only other time RAW was mentioned on SD was the RAW Rebound and vice versa.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

I believe the WWE doesn't give a shit about the overall quality of the product. They know that by having 12 PPVs per year instead of 4 or 8 meant they'd have a lower individual PPV buy rate but overall they'd have more money. That was why they started doing the In Your House PPVs.

Anyways, as a fan, I'd rather they spend months building feuds leading up to the PPV finish. Or maybe instead of a PPV every month, they have a Clash of The Champions. And let feuds/title changes finish there.

 

[Krobra]

1.) Do you think fewer PPVs in the year would help or hurt the WWE
A: I think less PPV's would be better off good for WWE than bad. Yeah, there would be less title matches and all, but at the same time, the PPVs would be bigger in terms of story line and better scripted.


2.) Is it a good idea or a bad idea from the perspective of a fan
I think this would also be a good idea for a fan. Less PPVs is less PPVs for someone to buy, but the matches would hopefully be better than the ones we are currently getting.


3.) How many PPVs would you have, and which ones would you keep (or bring back)
I would have 8 PPV's a year. Here is how I would line them up.

Backlash-May
This is the event after Wrestlemania and usually picks up on feuds that are still going on from Wrestlemania.

Summer Slam-August
With Summer Slam stated as the number 2 PPV, it should have enough time to build up to it. With two months of build up, story lines should be very good. Hopefully.

Night of Champions-September
A very good concept. Love the idea of every championship on the line.

Survivor Series-November
The original big 4. WWE should keep it in its tradition and give it time to build up.

Bragging Rights-December
Who doesn't like to brag? This PPV should pit inter promotional matches between Raw and Smackdown to determine the number one brand for that year.

Royal Rumble-January
The road to Wrestlemania begins at the Royal Rumble. Pitted as the number 3 PPV of the WWE PPV year.

Elimination Chamber-February
I love the Elimination Chamber match and like the PPV all together. Wished they kept it No Way Out though.

Wrestlemania-April
The Superbowl of WWE and number 1 WWE event of the year.

 

[OlderFan]

Having watched the product for many years I have to say the PPV idea worked best when it was only 4 per year - Summer Slam in August, Survivor Series in November, Royal Rumble in January, and Wrestlemania in the spring. More time to build the "history" between feuding characters that would an extra "adrenalin rush" to the whole vibe of the PPV shows. Shuffling some of what are currently better storylines taking place on PPV shows to the weekly broadcasts would make both shows more interesting and probably increase viewership = more money and more PPV buys. The way it is now, very little is done on the weekly shows and fans are basically being told that if they want to see the good stuff they have to buy the PPVs. Like another poster said here, not everyone can afford them as the price for one viewing of a PPV event has gone up to the point of being ridiculously expensive. This is just my opinion, no one has to agree and there's nothing wrong with anyone who doesn't, but I can no way to have one PPV and then create, build, or even continue anything enough to justify having another PPV 2 weeks later and telling the viewing public it'll cost them another $50-$60 dollars if they want to watch the continuation/finish to the story.

 

[marklouis]

For quality of the product, less PPVs would help. But the issue is about money, and PPVs make money, even if they have relatively low buy rates. Not only do you get the money from PPV orders, but you also get the gate from the live event. So they won't cut down. If it were up to me, I'd like to keep the big 3-Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, & SummerSlam. I'd change the Survivor Series back to the traditional format, but make it a live special that airs on USA or SyFy, or even NBC if they're interested. People go to live football games on the holiday, I'm sure you could get a good crowd for a live wrestling event. I'd also offer NBC "Night of Champions" as a summer special, live on a Sunday. If they or USA doesn't want to air it, keep it as a PPV. One of the guys from CSR had an interesting idea of having a PPV every month from November to Wrestlemania, but not having one every month for the rest of the year. That's an interesting idea. But fewer PPVs would help the WWE in my opinion.

 

[Tougie]

No doubt it would help the product more. When you have 2-3 weeks between events its really hard to have a great buildup. Back in 99 for example WWF would build up Austin vs. Taker for a month and when it finally happened your like "Its about damn time I couldnt wait any longer." Now with Cena vs. Barrett for example...its like "Wow who cares."

But of course there is the reason WWE has so many ppvs and that is money. Personally I dont think it makes much of a different, if you have a great product more people will buy, instead of having a sub par product with more PPVs. I'd assume it ends up about equal.

So yeah, it would help the fans because the product would improve, and I dont assume WWE is making anymore money than they would with a month long buildup rather than 2-3 weeks so I say it makes no difference.

 

[80s Dude]

I personally prefer the fewer PPVs a year, like it was back in the original Hogan era. I enjoyed the time it took to build feuds during those days. Like the Hogan Andre feud which culminated at Wrestlemania. That program lasted months. Now I realize some people might think that would make for stale TV, but by the time Wrestlemania came around, people were flocking to buy the PPV to find out how it would end.

One of the ways to help it from becoming stale, would be random matches. The participants in the feud wouldn't have to face each other week in and week out. For example, how many times have we seen Cena/Orton face each other over the last year.

This would create the problem where some of the midcarders would have to job more than usual. I mean, in this day and age where all the wrestlers are known as "superstars", its not like the old days when they used to have career jobbers. IE Barry Horowitz. Or, no name wrestlers, as I used to call them.

But as far as there being less title matches, this would be resolved by the proper return of Saturday Night Main Event. It would allow for special matches that could help the feud along. Sort of a taste of whats to come at the PPV. That could also eliminate most of the tag team matches thrown together on Raw and Smackdown between the two top feuds, cuz they could be held at the Main Event instead. I feel the reason that Main Event failed the last time thru, is cuz there is too much wrestling on TV as it is, and the flair and magic was lost in the process.

So I think less PPVs a year would be good for the product, and the viewers as well.

And as far as which PPVs I would bring back, I would say King Of The Ring. It should be the one in place of the Bragging Rights PPV, as it would be an inter-promotional tourney, and of course the winner would have said bragging rights anyway.

 

[tvcolosi]

It's kind of obvious that its a mute point for any discussion about better story lines with less PPVs, even though I agree it would more than likely help some. A low selling PPV and still a financial success. Its a PPV so tickets will sell very good, merchandise will sell, concessions will too. Not to mention somewhere near a 30 dollar profit from every PPV buy.

Its almost a little comparable to College Football. There is not a single argument against a playoff system that makes sense, but until the current system becomes unprofitable, we will not see a change.

 

[DeathClutch]

I'd have 7.5 PPV's

I'd keep Rumble, Mania, SummerSlam & Survivor Series. I'd bring back King of the ring (maybe revamp the name to WWE 20.. Grand Prix) I'd have keep Night of Champions.

Then I'd introduce three, 2 hour PPV's one between Rumble & Mania. one between June PPV and SummerSlam. and one in December with a Christmas type theme.
I'm not sure on how much PPV prices are, but these 2 hour PPV's should be cut to around 20 dollars and be used to promote the up coming BIG ppv and the December one being used with a Xmas theme/ENDING the years feuds to start the new year with fresh feuds.

 

[Kaneanite]

1 - I think it would both help and hurt the WWE in different aspects. What the WWE cares about is money and if you only look at that then yes it "hurts" the WWE to have less because they simply gain more money through pay-per-views. However, it could help the WWE by having the prestige of titles return due to longer reigns. These longer reigns would also make certain superstars (the champion at the time) look even stronger and build bigger fan bases. Which could lead to higher revenue sales. However, I doubt the higher revenue sales would match the money they get from the PPVs.

2 - From the perspective of the fan, pretty much the same thing minus the money issue. If you enjoy seeing big important matches often then you'd probably want more PPVs but if you are the type to enjoy long-drawn out title reigns and big build ups to feuds that often require patience then you'd want less PPVs. I fall in the latter category, but to each his own.

3 - I'd like 8 PPV's. Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Summer Slam are the obvious ones. I'd resurrect the PPV form of King of the Ring (tournament is held in one night). I'd keep Night of Champions, Elminiation Chamber, Money in the Bank, and Hell in a Cell. This would mean we'd miss TLC matches but why not just have a TLC match at Wrestlemania? Throw a cage match in there too! haha.

 

[MacSquirrely]

I hate the themed PPVs, I feel they take too much away from the gimmick matchs, just like TNAs' all cage PPV Lockdown. As far as there being too many PPVs, I think there is in the way that there are two PPVs within 2 weeks of each other (NoCs to HITC)... Unlike most people I don't think the WWE should do a "off-time" after Wrestlemania, Backlash is a great PPV. I think there should be 11 PPVs a year and the month within one should be December- to give the wrestlers some time to spend with their families.

I loved the Hell In The Cell Matches when you didn't know when they would turn up, they felt special, now however they feel overused and underneed. The storylines don't warrant them.

I feel the WWE's PPV Year should be like this:
1: Royal Rumble (the Wrestlemania setup)
2: No Way Out
3: Bad Blood
4: WrestleMania
5: Backlash
6: Night Of Champions (New Setups for the rest of the Year)
7: SummerSlam (Next Big PPV after WrestleMania, to follow on NoC Storylines)
8: No Mercy (To Act like Backlash)
9: Armageddon
10: In Your House
11: Survivor Series (To tie up the Years Storyarcs, ready for the non PPV Month and to give the next year a fresh start)

 

[Otacon]

If you want to watch the PPV you will buy it. That's only half the battle, its about the live show.
you gotta keep mixing it up

 

[AmericanDragonSW]

Overall, I think that having fewer PPVs would be beneficial in some way. I mean with what the WWE charges for PPVs these days, who wants to shell out that kind of money every month when half the time, they don't turn out that great. I would like it was pointed out earlier, keep Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. Night of Champions, my problem with that is isn't NOC what Wrestlemania should be? Of the themed ones, I would say maybe keep the one with the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell, just so long as the cages are actually put to use properly. Money in the Bank as much as I love the matches, I think should just be saved for Wrestlemania. Bragging Rights I feel serves no purpose and Fatal 4-Way is a PPV based on a match that is not wildly popular. Shortening the amount of PPVs does add more time for a build up in angles and rivalries so I think that this should actually happen

 

[Honkey_Kong]

Overall, I think that having fewer PPVs would be beneficial in some way. I mean with what the WWE charges for PPVs these days, who wants to shell out that kind of money every month when half the time, they don't turn out that great. I would like it was pointed out earlier, keep Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. Night of Champions, my problem with that is isn't NOC what Wrestlemania should be? Of the themed ones, I would say maybe keep the one with the Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell, just so long as the cages are actually put to use properly. Money in the Bank as much as I love the matches, I think should just be saved for Wrestlemania. Bragging Rights I feel serves no purpose and Fatal 4-Way is a PPV based on a match that is not wildly popular. Shortening the amount of PPVs does add more time for a build up in angles and rivalries so I think that this should actually happen

You're right about how fewer PPVs would be beneficial. However, you're referring to product quality. Problem is, the WWE has discovered, overall they will make more money doing monthly PPVs than they would not.

My main gripe with these PPVs is a lot of them turn out to be glorified RAWs where instead of resolving the feud, it builds towards a more major PPV. And that is cool, you need more than a month to develop a storyline, but I don't want to pay for that. I want the resolution!

 

[mvalley]

As stated before, Vince realizes he gets more money by having more PPVs.

I liked it when it was the "big five", Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, KOTR, SUmmerslam and Survivor Series. Of course, that was a short period time, two years, in which they added the In your house series which consisted of monthly (usually cheap) PPVs. Nowadays it feels like we still have the IYH series, just more expensive, and with the WWE using all their "special" matches thereby devaluing the importance of those special matches in hopes of compensating for the fans' lack of interest.

Though I doubt it could ever happen, I'd want them to go to the big five again. It's love it if they could only have four, with Summerslam and Wrestlemania being their big shows, with Royal Rumble and Survivor Series leading up to them (KOTR has basically been gone for years now aside from a few "one day KOTR-style" tournament). However, Survivor Series is after Summerslam thereby eliminating that idea. Therefore, the BIg Five would suffice, the Royal Rumble and KOTR setting up the challenger for the world / WWE title at the main event. Survivor Series would be used to tie off loose ends, and be an all around "fun" show for the holidays.

This won't happen, but it would be nice if it did because that would give plenty of time to build up to those "big matches" Of course,even if this did happen, the price for thise PPVs would probably be insane...like a hundred at least per PPV to compensate for the lost money in having fewer PPVs. I mean, the WWE did reduce the number of PPVs this year, yet raised the price of the others by five or ten bucks, right?

 

[Dzone]

Yeh fewer PPVs would get better crowd reactions and idividual sales for that PPV but with having more Vince realises he gets slightly less money BUT he gets this money every single bloody month *stupid money making bastard lol*.

 

[Lykkekage]

I hate the themed PPV's it ruins the surprise of which match we will see at the PPV, is the PPV is called Hell in a Cell, then it is obvious that the WWE title match will be in Hell in a Cell, now if it is not a themed PPV, it can be everything from Ladder match to Last man Standing, but on topic: i think that WWE should have 9 PPV's a year, like they said on CSR, from around October to Wrestlemania have 1 pr month, and then after that have 1 every second month (right now they have 13 total) and dont have those stupid themed PPV's like Hell in a Cell and TLC. They can keep Extreme Rules, that is a ok themed PPV, since we dont know which matches we will see, i would like to see something like:

January: Royal Rumble
February: No Way Out (or call it Elimination Chamber if you absolutely have to, since that is also a fine theme)
March: Wrestlemania
April: Backlash
June: King of the Ring
August: Summerslam
October: Unforgiven
November: Survivor Series
December: Extreme Rules

 

[boozinjedi]

Fewer PPVs wouls help the WWE in these ways:

1.With more time between PPVs,you have more time to "pump" up feuds,more time to build up characters.
2.In a down economy you would have a better buyrate with a PPV every other month or so,instead of every month.People nowadays just don't have that kind of "disposable"income.
3.It would benefit both heel AND face in title changes,
longer a heel champion reigns..the more heat he builds..therefore when the face takes the title away,the greater the "moment of redemption"

 

[TheOrtonRevolution]

Heck to the freaking yes! The whole concept of these situational PPV's are dumb. And yes, they should bring back the traditional ones. Concepts like "Fatal 4 Way", and that other PPV with the brand MITB matches are just stupid. MITB is suppose to be Wrestlemania exclusive. It's what defines Wrestlemania other than the big main event matches.

 

[DeathClutch]

I've spoke to a group of friends of mine who follow the WWE ppv's religiously, and not one of the 5 people I asked watch every ppv, 4 of them only order 6 of them, main 4 and 2 of the non-big 4 which ever they like the card of. The other guy orders on average of 1 every other month, sometimes he only orders the main 4.
Now personally this year I've only order Mania and Slam and streamed the rest of them. I order EVERY ppv from last year and when I added up the cost I was disheartend to think I'd wasted so much money and not one of them cards I felt I got my bucks worth, I don't think I got my moneys worth for Summerslam this year if I'm being honest but I can't complain since I've streamed 7 of the 9 we've had.

IF WWE has fewer the guys I asked said they'd order every one if their was like 7 or 8 but considering we had 14 and now 13 they won't shell out for half of them because they feel robbed afterwards and same goes for me. I honestly think if WWE cut down to 7-8 more people would order them and get excited for feuds rather then skip a ppv and watch the blow offs on the following PPV.

WWE has become a very money draining program to follow, and for kids to follow it's unbelievale what their rents will be shelling out. If parents stopped wasting money on PPV's and on the merch WWE would have to scale back greatly.

 

[BigBossOfThaNorf]

I believe that 13 pay-per-views are way too much. I would cut it down to around 8 pay per views a year. They would keep the big 4: Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Survivor Series. Then sprinkle 1 in between, but no gimmick shows. The fans would get longer more drawn out fueds, and will save 200 dollars on crappy pay-per-views that just feature rematches from the pay-per-view before it.

 

[knocturnal]

WWE needs to bring a Clash of The Champions style show to the WWE. I used to love COTC and they always felt like such a big deal. Throw one of these in the lineup every now and then between PPV and extend the feud length between superstars.

The only time a ppv has that big match feel is when they hold matches they never hold on free TV (HITC, MITB and the Elimination Chamber)