WWE to have 2 Brand specific PPVs a month?!?

[Gallops77]

As a business decision, it's smart. If the brands will truly be separate, they would need their own special events/PPVs. If they don't have their own events, what would be the point of having undercards? They wouldn't be featured on these events at all. So it really helps on getting those talents noticed and those talents getting chances. Different talents, different stories, different creative teams, etc... will warrant needing their own events. It adds more value to the Network. I'd gladly watch more than one PPV per month with my subscription. It also lets WWE have another PPV gate per month with higher ticket prices and draw a few more bigger gates per year. It's smart on their end.

My only question is MitB as a PPV. What brand would that be exclusive to? Or do you rename the PPV and stagger the MitB matches maybe six months apart to sort of rotate the briefcases? Or do you trash the event as a PPV all together and have two MitB matches at Mania? I would have a hard time believe they would trash the PPV all together seeing as it's actually more entertaining the last five years than any Survivor Series in recent memory.

I won't mind it. Gives me something to do on a Sunday night.

Hopefully they keep the one world title. Then you have a MITB match, whether it's Wrestlemania or Summerslam with both brands involved. The MITB winner can then appear whenever to cash in if they so choose.

 

[TDFG]

If this report is accurate then it'll confirm that WWE will go back to having two world champs and probably two tag & women champions.

20 PPV's is overkill, 12 PPV's slightly too many as it is. Why not keep the 12 as it is and either have 4 Brand Exclusive PPV's a piece or just have 3 or 4 matches for each Brand on PPV bar 'The Big 4'.

 

[dsotm5150]

20 PPVs a year is major overkill in my honest opinion. There's no need for it. I'd much rather they just them up RAW gets it this month Smackdown gets the following month etc etc. You can still share the big 4 and it doesn't over saturate the product. If nothing else it allows you to put more time and effort into a built. I get the feeling once they start all those extra PPVs they're gonna jack the network price up.

 

[Navi]

I'm fine with having brand exclusive PPV's again, that isn't the problem. Having two events per month is. That's overkill. There's 12 months in the year. The simple solution would be to have one PPV event per month where the 6 biggest ones are dual-branded. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Money In The Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, and Survivor Series. Then have 3 Smackdown exclusive shows and 3 Raw exclusive shows. Two shows in one month, whether brand exclusive or not, is just too much. I'll give it a try if that is the route they do take, however it doesn't seem like that great of an idea.

I have to echo this. No need for two different PPV's every month. You can have the 4-6 whatever they decide on being both brands, Mania, Rumble, Survivor Series, Summerslam, NOC and maybe MITB. The rest of the time would be RAW one month SD the next and so on and so forth.

It would give them more time to build a decent storyline that would be like a Phoenix. You have the feud end at the PPV, and have a different one rise out of the flames. I'm finding that right now you have an issue with feuds lasting over 3-4 PPV's the matches get stale and I don't care who wins by that time. If you have only one PPV to make that match count, then you make it count.