WWE's Schedule: A Compromise

[gasM]

First off, this thread concerns both WWE TV and WWE PPVs, so I thought it was best suited for the General WWE Section. If it's in the wrong place, feel free to move it!

A big complaint amongst WWE fans is the frequency of PPVs and how this affects storylines. Many people believe the high number of shows means the TV programmes are packed with segments and matches that only focus on the top PPV draws in order to sell the PPV, and that up and comers like Drew McIntyre, Tyler Reks et al aren't able to get significant screen time for character development etc. The big storylines also suffer because they aren't hyped up for long enough and the payoff at the PPV doesn't feel as big because the program hasn't had enough time to build up and pique the audience's interest.

These fans believe that less PPVs would solve most of these problems as stories would be more meaningful and the anticipation for PPV matches would be greater if we had more time to invest in the story. However, WWE relies on the money from PPV buys in order to thrive and be the massive entity it is and many believe that the WWE doesn't want to risk losing this money, meaning we are stuck with the heavy number of PPVs.

Here's my compromise: hold off on having all of your feuds culminate at the PPV.

For example, the top matches at No Way Out are:
John Cena vs Big Show
CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan vs Kane
Sheamus vs Dolph Ziggler
Christian vs Cody Rhodes

What if Cena vs Big Show wasn't happening at No Way Out?
Say Cena sold the WMD from the first week after OTL by not appearing for a while. Two WMDs in two nights could cause a kayfabe concussion. Still have Show's big path of destruction, squashing Kofi in the cage and so on. Still have Vince threatening to fire Laurinaitis and being KO'd - Show could have been aiming for one of the security people.
Then Show could cut a promo at No Way Out, only for Cena to return and have a brief scuffle before Show runs away. This would be quicker than an actual match, preserve the feud, and give other matches like the Triple Threat Match longer to run.
Then you have a few more weeks before the next PPV to hype the eventual Cena - Show grudge match, which has bigger stakes now as it has been festering for longer.

I wouldn't actually do this Cena - Show as I love how it's panned out so far (minus the Michael Cole night), it was just an example of how to hold off on matches happening at every PPV.

Thoughts?

 

[2Sweet_4Life]

Well ive been saying for a while and so have the IWC. 12 PPV's is just to many. I remember last year i think it was vengeance where there was only a 2 week build which is stupid. I like your a idea about Cena Vs Big show but i couldn't give a crap about that fued its been done so many times and we know Super Cena will win. But good ideas. Im actually refusing to buy NWO in protest of this fued being the main event-wwe title should be main event of OTL & NWO. Seriously WWE Cena vs Johnny & Cena vs Show in non title main events? It shows how dumb WWE is. But there is truth in what you say. I think the PPV's should be like this: RR,EC,WM,Backlash,MITB,KOTR- The winner gets a title match at Summerslam,SS,No mercy,Unforgiven,Survivor Series,TLC. This way we have better quality PPV's and 11 of them so about a 5-week build for all them. I also think there doesn't need to be title matches thrown on the card needlessly just for the sake of it with no build whatsoever. Like Sheamus Vs Ziggler- No build at all. When ADR got injured there didn't need to be a match we all know Sheamus will win. Sheamus could of done something else like cut a promo at NWO with ADR interrupting him and progressing their fued for when ADR returns. Ziggler vs Sheamus may be a good match but there is no emotion in the match i remember when storylines were so heated and built for months with 1 big payoff but with so many PPV's it's impossible. And with heated storylines crowds are much better and much more involved but Ziggler Vs Sheamus the crowd just doesn't care because Sheamus beat Ziggler twice in a row CLEAN. And because there are so many PPV's its just impossible to build long-term fueds because they have to have a match every 3 weeks at a PPV-It's Pathetic.

 

[DDelaware2009]

12 PPVs per year with 52 weeks in a calendar year = 4 weeks minimum to build for a PPV, with 4 chances to give a PPV 5 weeks build, if everything is spread out evenly. Which is not 100% necessary, some PPVs like 'Mania would benefit from even 6 weeks of build while others (Backlash, Extreme Rules, or whatever is coming after 'Mania these days) may only need 3 weeks as much of the card is residual from WM. I dont think the problem is in the calendar as much as in the USE of the time from the writers.

Also, understand this: fans buy PPVs based on the matches, not to see promos, so the OP theory of having Show or Cena cut a promo or whatever - that's not gonna fly, sorry dude

 

[richunclescrooge]

I think that's a fairly good idea, give more people a time to shine and let some people rest while simultaneously building the story over more time.

I do think a better idea would be just not to waste time on raw and smackdown. They have 4 hours each week, so that's 16 hours in a month to build. Subtract commercial time and it's more like 12 hours, so I'm to understand that with that much time to build to a PPV we still can't matches that just show up on the PPV without any prior mention? Ridiculous!

 

[BLeonard]

Problem with that is that, if Cena isn't on the show, the chances are, the PPV will get significantly less buys because of that.

Now, if I were in charge, this would be my plan:

1: Make SmackDown a live show full-time. Whether you move it to Tuesdays or reorganize your schedule for Fridays, having it live, IMO, will garner significantly more interest for the Blue Brand.

Three weeks ago, I couldn't have cared less about TNA... Now that they are live (and I can't read spoilers two weeks in advance) I have more interest in TNA and what they are doing than I did before... If they did ths for SmackDown, my guess is, the same thing would happen. I can't be the only one that feels this way.

Assuming you could get Sy-Fi to agree, I'd put the shows on Tuesday Nights in the same 8-10 timeslot. Reason being, more peope are likely to be at home watching TV on Tuesday Nights than they are on Friday Nights.

2: Re-introduce the brand split and STICK TO IT! If a wrstler (err, Superstar) is assigned to RAW, they ONLY appear on RAW... If they are SmackDown, they only show up on SmackDown. You could do trades, etc in storyline if you wanted to flip flop certain people, to cover for injuries, suspensions, etc.

3: Rotate PPV events between the brands, while keeping 4 PPV's open to have matches from both brands on (like the Royal Rumble, WrestleMania). That would mean each brand is really only having 8 PPV's a year, while the company could still have 12 shows.

Yes, I realize this was done before, but the thing is, SD was not a live show and, at least IMO, were treated as the "B" show... Meaning less "star power" and meaning less interest in the product. Making SmackDown live and dividing the roster up in a fashion that shows that the WWE sees RAW and SmackDown as equals would help solve that issue, IMO.

Even if I'm a major Cena fan (which I'm not) and he's on RAW, chances are, they'd have me buying 2/3 of the PPV's as opposed to buying 2 or 3 PPV's a year, because of the fact that the storylines wouldn't have to move as fast as they do now, which results in putting stuff on PPV that really shouldn't be there, or having to rush the storylines, because a PPV is coming up next week.

If they had been under the rotating plan I suggested, Over the Limit would have been a SmackDown show and they would have been able to build Cena/Show since the end of April. Instead, they ended up putting Cena and Laurinaitis on a PPV, which damn near everyone figured cena would lose in some fashion.

-Bill

 

[DDelaware2009]

WWE prefers taping Smack Down- logistics and cost being the most oft-cited reasons...and the brand split will never go back to being 100% enforced, and split-brand PPVs were disastrous for buyrates- it was like they were competing against themselves (ie. people saying "CM Punk is on RAW only so I will only buy RAW ppvs"

Also, look: they can't even put together a solid 7 or 8 match card with BOTH rosters available - doing split brand PPVs is impossible. the Raw/SmackDown rivalry is played out, sorry

Again, the problem is not the brands or the schedule, its simply the writing...

 

[Evenflow DDT]

Bottom line... The WWE will NEVER, nor should they decrease the number of PPVs they produce every year for one reason, MONEY. PPVs generate a lot of cash to line Vince's pockets and keep the Pirate Ship running. Even if they did reduce the number of PPVs they would just increase the price for the remaining PPVs like they did a couple years back.

The main problem with the scheduling of PPVs is there are on 4-5 Sundays a month and if there is a major sports event (i.e The Super Bowl) or a major holiday (Christmas) they are only down to 3-4 Sundays to choose from. Now Vince would be foolish to try to counter program against something as big as those two. And whether its some sort of PPV rule or common courtesy he doesnt air his PPVs during TNAs, which would drive TNA out of buisness. (He did it againt NWA/WCW in '87 and '88) That leaves them down to 2-3 Sundays to choose from.

Their best bet would be to switch to Saturday nights where they could air PPVs on the last saturday of every month mainly because UFC events tend to be near the middle of the month. Yes, a lot of people go out on Saturday nights, but WWE these days is geared towards families and kids (who happen to spend saturday nights at home). And with the additional hour of RAW they could use that WISELY (which i doubt) to build feuds although i feel they will use it for more backstage segments and eventually a "pre-game" show.

 

[PositiveBlack]

I don't think having a PPV ever month is bad. However I do think they need time to let stories breath. It seems like rivalries only last on average 2-3 months. 6 months at mid card level and thats if your lucky. Kane came back what early this year and he already kinda irrelevant. If WWE had stretched the Cena vs Big Johnny thing out we could have got a big pay-off. Can you imagine if Cena faced Lesnar then Tensai instead of Johnny last month then this month Big Show knocked Cena out at NWO then Summerslam Cena knocks out Laurnitis. They're would be a 6.3 rating for following Raw and the next PPV

 

[Cvaldezjr04]

6.3 is kinda of an exaggeration, don't you think? It'd be great to see WWE at those levels again! But I know what you mean.

Anyway, I am a believer that 12 ppv's a year is just way too many. It kills storylines. The only possible way a 12 ppv a year schedule would work, is doing what they were doing just a few short years ago, split the brands, but I mean REALLY split the brands, to where they're kind of their own show with nobody from one show going to the other unless its a big time match. Give each brand alternating ppv's, where the only time both brands would be on the same ppv, would be the "Big 4 (royal rumble, wrestlemania, summerslam and survivor series)." Give each brand 1 world champion, 1 mid card champion, hell even a set of tag team champions on each brand, but only if they're really gonna build up the tag team division, if not, just leave it on one show, SD! would be the best choice. Maybe the women's/divas champion could be 1 for both brands seeing that there is not enough divas that can actually wrestle to make that title legit. Doing this would give the storylines 2 months of buildup till the ppv match.
anyways, this is my opinion.

Other alternative of this would be to unify the titles, get rid of the dead weight thats on the roster that can't wrestle or talk on the mic. cut the ppv's and start making the titles matter again.

 

[GameOver]

It's a no brainer that less PPV's would mean a better build and better buy rates for the PPV's when they happned but the people that matter don't see it that way, and i can see there argument, more is better and less pay on a more frequent basis is better then taking a risk at waiting a few months and getting a bigger pay out to cover the costs of the previous months from the last PPV.

having more PPV's and more shows mean more chance to capture a wider audience and can lose others in between.

Personally i would be all for a PPV every 2 months instead of monthly extended Supershows which is effectively what a PPV is other then the big 4 which still retain there PPV feel. every month is getting too expensive as a viewer anyway.

 

[akathelaw]

PPVs are overpriced, too frequent and lacking in substance. Other than Punk vs Bryan there is nothing at all exciting going on. Who still buys them?

Adjusting brand splits, shuffling titles around or alternating PPV rosters will change nothing. WWE has very few stars left. The WWE mid card is empty. When they figure out how to make stars again, we'll get better PPV shows. Until that happens, WWE is treading water.

 

[jerry20xx]

I don't think less is better. They will never get rid of them so you all can stop bitching. What I think should be done is going back the old way, when Raw & Smackdown were getting separate pay per views. (Minus the obvious Summer Slam,WM,RR, Survivor Series, etc...)

That way, they get more than enough time to build feuds for each show.

 

[jrush1978]

Bottom line... The WWE will NEVER, nor should they decrease the number of PPVs they produce every year for one reason, MONEY. PPVs generate a lot of cash to line Vince's pockets and keep the Pirate Ship running. Even if they did reduce the number of PPVs they would just increase the price for the remaining PPVs like they did a couple years back.

The main problem with the scheduling of PPVs is there are on 4-5 Sundays a month and if there is a major sports event (i.e The Super Bowl) or a major holiday (Christmas) they are only down to 3-4 Sundays to choose from. Now Vince would be foolish to try to counter program against something as big as those two. And whether its some sort of PPV rule or common courtesy he doesnt air his PPVs during TNAs, which would drive TNA out of buisness. (He did it againt NWA/WCW in '87 and '88) That leaves them down to 2-3 Sundays to choose from.

Their best bet would be to switch to Saturday nights where they could air PPVs on the last saturday of every month mainly because UFC events tend to be near the middle of the month. Yes, a lot of people go out on Saturday nights, but WWE these days is geared towards families and kids (who happen to spend saturday nights at home). And with the additional hour of RAW they could use that WISELY (which i doubt) to build feuds although i feel they will use it for more backstage segments and eventually a "pre-game" show.

I'm sure it has to do with money, if it didn't work they wouldn't do it but I like the idea of not every PPV being Sunday at 7p\8p eastern. A couple Saturday night PPV's would be cool, I believe remembering when I was a kid that SummerSlam a couple years was on a Monday night, I guess Taboo Tuesday was a disaster but not sure if that was b/c of the night or b/c the events were horrendous. But switching it up sometimes would be a nice change.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Great idea for the Cena and Big Show thing.

I think that they should do 6 PPV's a year only and 1 special RAW/SMACDOWN a month like TNA's Open Fight Night. This would give fueds a long time to build up. It might be too long and the creative might run out of ideas but they should take a 1 or 2 weeks break for a build up For example; brock vs punk at summerslam and there can be a build up from no way out(2 months). But during the whole "break" idea I mentioned, they can be put in random matches like cena v orton or Brock v sheamus.

If they do lose money however, they should have an idea to make more money or add 1 or 2 more PPVs/special RAW/SMACKDOWN(s).

 

[Killercam]

There should only be one month where there is no ppv, and that is Feb. I'm sorry but having Elimination Chamber between Rumble and Mania is ******ed. There is absolutely no need for a ppv between rumble and mania. This way you can actually build story lines and put more into the payoff for these story lines at Mania. Plus it would feel a little more special than it already does.