WWE Pay Per View Issues

[theonepeter]

Only a week and a half away from this years Survivor Series and there's only 3 matches so far. Wow talk about horrible build ups. Theres going to be a lot of thrown together matches with little build up. Isn't Survivor Series one of the 4 biggest ppvs of the year? Think its definitely time to do away with every month being a ppv. It makes for a ppv that only has 1 or 2 non monday night raw matches. If there was only 6 ppvs a year this months event would have been announced and actually had some decent build up.

 

[Jaffa]

But if there were only 6 PPVS a month that would mean 8 episodes of raw, mainevent, Smackdown between PPVS which would equate to 48 hours of programming with a feud paying off. I can't see that happening that would drag out feuds far too long before there was a match or there would be plenty of matches before the PPV. It worked in the old days because of a large roster with only limited air time but the air time now is so much greater that it wouldn't work today.

 

[Cade]

Twelve PPV's a year is a bit too much, I agree. Part of the issue is that they do typically give some extra time between Elimination Chamber and 'Mania, meaning another part of the calender needs to be crammed to compensate.

As it stands now, some of the current shows are redundant. Especially in the PG era, where the core conceit of certain PPV's can't even be capitalized on. Elimination Chamber, Hell in a Cell, Extreme Rules, TLC; all of them are based on the concept of extreme violence in at least one marque match, something that doesn't really happen anymore. You could condense them down to the most distinct of the two, Chamber and HIAC, and not really lose anything, and it would also keep the cage match/hardcore themed shows spaced out in the first and second half of the year, so there's no overload.

After that, you've got several more PPV's which don't really have any identity. Payback, Battleground. Night of Champions is getting iffy, with the midcard belts so marginal now.

A PPV schedule of Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Wrestlemania, Money in the Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, Hell in a Cell, and Survivor Series, spaced about a month and a half apart each, would seem to cover all the bases. The gimmicks are there, the big four are there. The only problem I'd see with it (outside WWE probably having no interest in dropping PPV's, of course) is that Survivor Series and Hell in a Cell might do best to switch places and keep the Major, Minor, Major, Minor pattern going, which would move Survivor Series away from Thanksgiving.

 

[5000]

I Think all 4 big ppvs should have building space like Mania

Jan-RR

Feb-No Way Out

April-WM

June-Money In The Bank

September-Summerslam

October:Hell and Back (HIAC,TLC,Extreme Rules,,all stipulations and at least one or 2 deadly matches such as Casket,Buried Alive,or Inferno)

December-Survivor Series

I also think the Brand Split will work so that way come the end of the year everyone hasn't already worked with each other like how it is in TNA with no room for Dream Matches and they should also keep stuff from wrestling sites to keep it from being predictible

 

[Dagger Dias]

They could realistically eliminate every single PPV from the calendar with the exceptions of The Big 4 and Money In the Bank. Will WWE do that? No. It is highly unlikely. They think they will make more money off having monthly PPV events, so until they start doing terrible on a monthly basis, that format appears to be here to stay. I'm fine with it being monthly if they spaced it out just a little more. The big issue obviously being the two PPV's in October issue. They had it right in 2012 where there was only one. If they kept Money In the Bank and the Big 4 but eliminated all of the others, that gives roughly 2 months in between each show.

January - Royal Rumble
March - Wrestlemania
June - Money In the Bank
August - Summerslam
November - Survivor Series

I doubt WWE would ever do that though. One per month is a much more likely possibility. So a lineup such as the following would be more doable in today's WWE:

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

Something like this would be a lot more possible to see in today's WWE. The only big change being Over the Limit is brought back to feature the I Quit, Iron Man, and Last Man Standing matches while Payback replaces Extreme Rules as the annual Wrestlemania rematch show to give the Payback brand a purpose while eliminating the one PPV brand that I dislike. Battleground is eliminated as it served no purpose whatsoever beyond making people waste money. One PPV per month is quite doable, but Wrestlemania should get a longer build and October does NOT need two shows. There are other shows I'd like to see brought back like King of the Ring and Starrcade, but this is a more realistic possibility.

 

[rbv13]

Money…… Money…… Money!!! No it is not Shane McMahon it is what drives any business. Even with a low buy rate a PPV is going to garner more revenue than a house show or no event at all. PPV ticket prices are going to be higher and the event will generate greater merchandise sales. The filler PPVs are just that. They jump us from major PPV to major PPV while pulling in some extra cash.

Speaking of the “big four” why is Survivor Series included in this group? I understand it was an original but now days it in no way resembles what made it such a unique event. Recapturing its glory days would revive the event and give the fans a change of pace from the typical PPV format.

These “Specialty” PPVs have to go. The notion that an event needs little build and a gimmick match is going to persuade fans to make a purchase is absurd. I will use Hell in a Cell as an example. This should have been a match type used for the most extreme of occasions. Now we have seen one of two a year, at the same event, for five years. The matches are typically the same and have lost that unique feel. I also feel that Money in the Bank has been played out. Since 2010 the gimmick has all but fizzled. The notion of the “guy that’s ready” has backfired more than not. This past year’s winner of the blue case, Sandow, was no where near ready to flirt with a WHC run. The same can be said for past winners such as Ziggler, Swagger, Miz and with the case even Daniel Bryan peaked a bit before he was ready.

 

[RicSpade]

I think people forget though in the late 80's early 90's the amount of TV time vs feuds spanned longer then time frames now or even passed what would be considered a 6 months worth of ppvs. Piper vs. Bad news brown culminated at WM6, but feud went back to Royal Rumble and that was a span of almost 3 months. Ultimate Warrior and Rick Rude their first feud went from Royal Rumble and didn't culminate until Summerslam. Savage vs. Dusty Rhodes lasted for months. The point is you could do away with ppvs and even with all the tv time have a decent build, a few interviews, backstage fights, tag matches, false matches, etc. The problem imo is the writers today can't stretch out feuds long I don't know if they think people will lose interest or what, but I know it can be done if you plan it out right.

 

[LODemolition]

Yeah, this is what happens when they do 13 ppv's a year. You get 3 announced matches a week prior to the event, and then the rest of the card is just thrown together. Usually with little or no build, and they even get announced on WWE.com because no effort was put into an actual storyline.

And then the powers that be would rather believe that guys like Daniel Bryan don't draw instead of using logic and realizing the fans can't dish out $60 every month. I don't order ppv's, I go to the local sports bar and pay $5 when I do watch. Even so, I stick to the events that matter. The Rumble, Mania, and sometimes MITB/SummerSlam. The rest of the year, I've become a very casual fan.

 

[bioshock]

I don't think having 12 PPV's a month has anything to do with it. Even back then in the 80s some matches had no build up and were only announced a week or so before the event, not all matches had months or even a month build up. Of course the big main events had usually 3+ months of build up and backstory, but not all the matches on the card did.

Survivor Series over the past few years has been one of the worst built up shows, and horrible booked, this year is no different, WWE treats this event like Vince wants the bad ratings just so he has a good reason to dump it for something stupid. Vince loves his gimmick events, but for some reason is too scared to book an entire show to team matches. I could care less about buying or watching this years event, I passed on it the past 2 years now, I'd buy if it was all 4v4 or 5v5 matches, not paying for an event that looks like last months show with one or two team matches thrown in just to say it has them.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I really hate the idea that always comes up of less PPVs. This worked back in the day because you could get away with half your matches being squashes. Not now. Once a month is fine.

As far as only having 4 matches, so what? I'd rather have 7-8 total matches, giving the big 3 or 4 matches all kinds of time vs cramming a bunch in. Also, just because undercard matches aren't announced doesn't mean they won't have logic behind them happening.

 

[twills011]

Royal Rumble - January

Wrestlemania - March

Money in the Bank - May - or whenever actually

Elimination Chamber - June/Juny - winner gets WWE Undisputed Champion title shot at Summer Slam

Summer Slam - August

King of the Ring - Octoberish - winner gets title shot a survivor series

Survivor Series - Late November - KotR winner "survived" the tournament

Night of Champions - December - so much potential and has been poorly executed.

I would have Hell in a Cell and TLC go back to being match stipulations at PPVs.

 

[Trail_Blazin]

Because of the money these pay-per-views bring in, I don't see them consolidating. But they really could.

The PPVs that I think would be nice to have, 1.5 months apart:

January - Royal Rumble
February- Elimination Chamber
April- WrestleMania
May- King of the Ring
July- Money in the Bank
August- SummerSlam
October- Hell in a Cell
November- Survivor Series

8 PPVs that allow for feuds to come together and develop. It also allows for good amounts of time to be dedicated to the undercard. Curtain jerker feuds need to be developed too, beyond a sneak attack. They need to tell stories.

But, it won't happen. Money talks and the WWE brings in a ton on these pay-per-views.

I'd also go back to more traditional stuff... Survivor Series would be pretty much all 4v4 matches except for the Title match. Hell in a Cell would ONLY be used at Hell in a Cell OR WrestleMania if necessary.

King of the Ring would be just the tournament, besides maybe an IC/World Title match.

*shrug*