PDA

View Full Version : Does WWE needs LESS Pay-Per-View events?



himfandelux
12-04-2010, 10:04 PM
As I keep rolling back the time through my personal time machine (VHS tapes) and traveling through pay-per-views of the past, I come to one outstanding conclusion.

WWE needs less PPV's.

Go back and watch WrestleMania X or XI, SummerSlam 94, or the old KOTR tourney's (When being KOTR actually meant something). The matches felt epic, even the under-card. There was time to build up huge rivalries, many of them lasting to this day. I still sit here and think "wow, is there any better rivalry than HBK and Razor Ramon?"

I'm not saying go back to having 4 PPV's a year. I understand that wrestling is a business, and with all businesses, there's a need to make money. However, i dont think cutting from 14 PPV's, down to say 8, would really hurt. If anything it would help increase revenue. So many fans today don't want to shell out $44.99 to watch a PPV every month, especially in this economy. As a result we see streaming on the internet. I've even gotten in on the action, and have been in viewing rooms where there were upwards of 5,000 people. 44.99 X 5,000 = 224,950. That means WWE is missing out on almost a quarter of a Million dollars on PPV's. I think people would be more willing to hand over their money to WWE 8 times a year, rather than 14. 14 PPV's is just greedy.

I understand that you can't be having all sorts of title matches on live TV, its just bad for business. But would it hurt to have a huge title change on TV once in awhile to maybe get the fans to buy more PPV's? Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

Add in the fact that the Intercontinental and United States belts have been rendered completely un-prestegious, and you have only two matches that people really care about on a monthly basis. Whatever happened to having upper card talent battle over those two titles? Remember when HHH held the European title (and whatever happened to the European title anyway?...or the Hardcore title, or the light-heavyweight title...am i making my point here?)? Put more prestige back into the mid-card titles, and bring back the Light-Heavyweight title, and add the uncertainty with the Hardcore title (anytime, anywhere) and all of the sudden you have a much more intreguing product, talent elevating to main event status, unpredictability, and increased interested in a product that is slowly losing momentum, and most of its older audience.

8 PPV's, better title holders, more money.

Opinions Welcome.

Rich Cranium
12-04-2010, 10:17 PM
Wow, a lot to read! Anyway, I think less in this situation is better. Sure, you dont want to cut back to 4 which would be laughable but I agree that 8 is a good number and this way WWE could buildup their storylines in more time as opposed to a couple of weeks which makes the event more special and would draw more buys instead of fans like me waiting to purchase the "big deals" like Royal Rumble or WM and reading the interim events online.

MinistryOfDarkness
12-04-2010, 10:30 PM
I agree 100%. I just had a topic like this earlier today. I think it would increase the importance of rivalries if there were less PPV's.

The Brown One
12-04-2010, 11:12 PM
As I keep rolling back the time through my personal time machine (VHS tapes) and traveling through pay-per-views of the past, I come to one outstanding conclusion.

WWE needs less PPV's.

Go back and watch WrestleMania X or XI, SummerSlam 94, or the old KOTR tourney's (When being KOTR actually meant something). The matches felt epic, even the under-card. There was time to build up huge rivalries, many of them lasting to this day. I still sit here and think "wow, is there any better rivalry than HBK and Razor Ramon?"

I'm not saying go back to having 4 PPV's a year. I understand that wrestling is a business, and with all businesses, there's a need to make money. However, i dont think cutting from 14 PPV's, down to say 8, would really hurt. If anything it would help increase revenue. So many fans today don't want to shell out $44.99 to watch a PPV every month, especially in this economy. As a result we see streaming on the internet. I've even gotten in on the action, and have been in viewing rooms where there were upwards of 5,000 people. 44.99 X 5,000 = 224,950. That means WWE is missing out on almost a quarter of a Million dollars on PPV's. I think people would be more willing to hand over their money to WWE 8 times a year, rather than 14. 14 PPV's is just greedy.

I understand that you can't be having all sorts of title matches on live TV, its just bad for business. But would it hurt to have a huge title change on TV once in awhile to maybe get the fans to buy more PPV's? Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

Add in the fact that the Intercontinental and United States belts have been rendered completely un-prestegious, and you have only two matches that people really care about on a monthly basis. Whatever happened to having upper card talent battle over those two titles? Remember when HHH held the European title (and whatever happened to the European title anyway?...or the Hardcore title, or the light-heavyweight title...am i making my point here?)? Put more prestige back into the mid-card titles, and bring back the Light-Heavyweight title, and add the uncertainty with the Hardcore title (anytime, anywhere) and all of the sudden you have a much more intreguing product, talent elevating to main event status, unpredictability, and increased interested in a product that is slowly losing momentum, and most of its older audience.

8 PPV's, better title holders, more money.

Opinions Welcome.

Daniel Bryan and Dolph Ziggler are holding the midcard titles right now, so I think it would be fair to say that they are bringing some prestige back to them. Not as much as the legends from before, but you get the point.

I agreee that the number of PPVs each year should be cut down to 8. That way no long waits for the "big 4" and also better storylines behind the fueds which would make me wanna order them.

Thewoodcutter
12-05-2010, 12:07 AM
This would be great. More build up in between pay per view is all I m asking like when I was a little Tike.

nrb6304
12-05-2010, 12:07 AM
I totally agree with only 8 PPV's a year. I think there are so many PPV's that are just unneccessary.
For one I hate the freaking gimmick PPV's. HATE THEM! I cannot stand the freaking gimmick PPV's!

MY PERSONAL PPV SCHEDULE:
Jan-Royal Rumble
Feb-BYE
March-Wrestlemania
April-Extreme Rulez
May-Over the Limit
June-Vengeance
July-BYE
August-Summerslam
September-Unforgiven
October-BYE
November-Survivor Series
Decemeber-BYE

I personally don't think you need a Feb. PPV, and with the WWE/WORLD title unification match there's no need for the Elimination Chamber (or No Way Out) just Rumble straight to Wrestlemania.

The only reason I kept Extreme Rulez is because honestly, Backlash was normally always filled with gimmick matches anyway due to the fallout of Wrestlemania, so might as well keep that one.


**WEIRD FACT**
Anybody ever notice till now that Unforgiven and No Mercy are basically the same damn thing?

Robstar
12-05-2010, 12:22 AM
Yes definetly. And I just scanned your post as it was so long - sorry! They need to invest more time in stories but wont. The sleeping giant WWE is too interested in making money, money, money now, now, now and it will ultimately be at the expense of the good of wrestling. Wait and see, the WWE are shitting in their own nest

evilgenius780
12-05-2010, 01:30 AM
When certain PPVs get 2 weeks buildup, you definitely have too many. I really wish they would lose the gimmick PPVs. Let the feud dictate the match type.

CMhuw24
12-05-2010, 04:57 AM
If there was less PPVs least we could see some decent build up.
But to be fair i have liked a few feuds this, well CM Punk vs Rey and Cena vs Nexus have been pretty entertaining.

The Watcher
12-05-2010, 05:36 AM
Why eight? That seems a somewhat random number... Why not six, giving two months to build up every PPV?

I'd also removed the gimmick based PPVs and use those matches on regular PPVs as and when needed.

The schedule would then look like:

Jan: Royal Rumble
March: Wrestlemania
May: King of the Ring
July: Summerslam
Sept:Night of Champions
Nov: Survivor Series (main evented with a War Games match)

TJHawkesybaby
12-05-2010, 08:02 AM
Yeah 8 a year is a good number defintaly! Gives enough to time to make stories/feuds mean summat!

Good shout! but definatly not 14 its just ridiculous!!!!

Kashdinero
12-05-2010, 08:47 AM
Make more main eventers and at least make it 10 PPV's a year. I agree 8 is better but asking WWE to almost half their ppv's is asking a hell of a lot!

And while we're here don't have guys who are wrestling at a PPV wrestle each other on SD or Raw during the build up. All it does is devalue their match at the PPV.

xAzureSkye
12-05-2010, 11:58 AM
Yes i definitely agree with you. Enough of these gimmick PPV's crap, "Hell in a Cell' has about 2 Hell in a Cell matches which is dumb.

January - Royal Rumble
March - Wrestlemania
April - Extreme Rules
June - Fatal 4 Way
July - Night of Champions
August - Summerslam
October - Bragging Rights
November - Survivor Series

that's what i think should be the WWE PPVs for the year.

Rassling_Fan
12-05-2010, 12:14 PM
I would love to see less PPVs per year. With that right there, Title reigns would increase because it'll be rare for a title change to take place on TV.

2bluntsup
12-05-2010, 12:42 PM
The ppv schedule should go like this:
January-Royal Rumble
Febuary-No Way Out
March-Mania ( with the money in the bank match)
April-Backlash
May-Extreme Rules
June-Night of Champions
July-Bragging Rights (with the Main event being a 7 on 7 raw vs smackdown one fall match)
August- SummerSlam
September- Fatal 4 Way
October- Halloween Havoc
November- Survivor Series (Elimination Chamber Main Event)
December- Cyber Sunday

IPEEINTHESHOWER
12-05-2010, 01:00 PM
Hello SHOWERHEADS and SPRINKLERS of all ages please allow the most stand out, most liked and has the best f-e-u-d in the EWN community to give his infinite wisdom on this matter. I'm going against the crowd on this one. I am a wrestling fan especially a WWE fan and I look forward to the ppv's every month. I don't mind paying for them as long as I get my moneys worth. Most of the time I do. 3 full hours of entertainment unlike boxing where a fight can last 30 sec. UFC on the other hand I always get my moneys worth but that's a different story. WWE creative well needs to be creative and most of the time I wonder why they even have a job in the first place. I understand that its hard to build up a f-e-u-d in two weeks but it can be done, pretty well I might add. I think people forget wrestling fans just like everyone else nowadays have a "we want it now" attitude and IMO most people have ADD. Pro rasslin has changed and they certainly don't get the ppv buy rates they once did. Cutting back to 8 ppv's when ppv's buys are down is not the brightest business decision. Going back down to 8 ppv's a year is not going to get more people to buy ppv's, here's the deal, if your a wrestling fan you'll watch it, if your not a wrestling fan you could care less about a fictitious fight that cost 44.99 to watch it. I believe I was born a wresting fan, its in my blood, its my favorite type of entertainment. There are many forms of entertainment in this world, plays, Broadway, movies and sports to name a few. Pro rasslin needs to reinvent themselves if you will. Fresh new idea's are out there, it just takes a leap of faith for them to get rid of the old timers and there mentality so they can hire new people with new idea's and jump start a new golden age of pro rasslin. Does anyone know where I can fill out an application????;)

cubco
12-05-2010, 05:43 PM
Definatley less PPVs. Personally, I think there should only be 6 each year, one every two months

Royal Rumble,
Wrestlemania,
King of the King,
Summerslam,
Survivor Series, (can be faces vs heels, tag teams vs tag teams, SD vs Raw)
Armageddon (can have a different name)

Instead of Survivor Series, they could have Bragging Rights, but call it a different name.
IC Champ vs US Champ to get things started
Tag Team Champs (Raw) vs SmackDown Team (Or vice versa if SD Team is champs)
Divas Champ (Raw) vs SmackDown Diva (Or vice versa if SD Diva is champ) - posbile lumberjill match
WWE Champion vs World Heavyweight Champion
Team Raw vs Team SmackDown. (Elimination Match)

At the end of the night, which ever brand has the majority wins, win.