Tommy Platinum

I know this topic has been discussed in other threads to a certain extent, but I only just realized that No Way Out is tomorrow night, and it got me thinking. WWE really don't leave themselves enough time between PPVs. I am not sure exactly how many weeks it has been, but it seems like Royal Rumble only just came and went. I don't think PPVs feel special because they come so thick and fast. There isn't really enough time to build matches to make them seem the big deal they should, and there are basically just too many PPVs. It also must be a problem for people who want to buy every PPV, especially in the current financial climate. Surely WWE would draw far better buyrates and make more money overall if they left themselves a bit more time between PPVs to build feuds and make them seem special, as well as saving people some money. A lot of people can't justify spending that much on a show every month. In fact, WWE PPVs actually come around more regularly than once a month, which just seems too much to me.

Do you think there are too many PPVs?

__________________

The Dream

I think that WWE should go back to brand-exclusive PPVs again. Have Raw have Backlash, , Unforgiven,Cyber Sunday, and bring back Vengance and get rid of Night of Champions. Let Smackdown and ECW have Judgment Day, Great American Bash, No Mercy, and No Way Out. Of course let all 3 brands have the big four PPVs and get rid of Armageddon.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Tomas

I honestly believe if they made six ppvs a year it would give the E enough time in between each to build feuds that would mean something and would be worth the money to view. Now that would be ridiculous from a financial view as twelve brings in revenue constanly so I doubt that would ever occur but thats just my .02

__________________

James Deuce

Well, there are plus's and minuses to have long/short periods. The brand only ppv's were just horrible, Smackdown at least. So if they go back to those, good luck on getting a lot of buys. I think the time in between is decent. The real problem is how they are building the feuds...a lot of the feuds going on just don't seem to matter. Of course the main feuds are built up well (to an extent) but the 5 other matches on the card are just like yeah, whatever.

__________________

horrorfan_1986

There hasn't been a huge rise in PPV buyrates since dropping the brand PPV approach. Infact, several shows has seen declines in buyrates.
-------------

It all depends on what's the WWE's mission for their PPV's. If all they're trying to do is create a 14 episodic entries in a series, then I feel as if there is enough time. Each show is meant to build upon the last one. The Jericho/Michaels feud is a great example of PPV's being just that.

However, I became accustomed to PPV's being a rare and special event. Each quarter would feature this mega event where all of the feuds would come to a head at the show. As long as you built the show up well enough, each and every PPV were essential viewings. The PPV's were so important because they: A) Had the matches you've been dying to see B) Featured critical moments in the wrestler's careers and C) You're going to have to wait another four months before the company puts on such a stacked show.

We don't get that anymore. If you don't catch a PPV, it's fine since you're going to see the same shit at the next PPV. With the recession and layoffs kicking out ass, a show has to be pretty fucking good to feel it's worth 40-50 dollars of our hard earned money. Most shows have one or two interesting things, but I can't say it's enough that it makes me want to fork over my money, especially when I know I can get it for a lot cheaper if I just wait a month. On top of that, I can read reviews to know whether the show was actually worth the price or not. For anyone who's ever bought a good about of PPV's, we've all bought those shows that once they end, you instantly know you just wasted your money.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


As much as I'd like to see the WWE go back to four PPV's, for the same exact reason why I want that (Aka cheaper), the WWE wants to do the opposite. Even with the decline of the average PPV buyrate, the WWE still has so many other PPV's to count on to bring in the money. I'm willing to bet that even their worst PPV ever (December To Dismember) that they not only covered all expenses (Building fees, paying the workers, checks for the wrestlers and all the fees like catering and gas money) but made a little profit. As long as the WWE's goal is to make money (Which it will always be), there's no reason to ever go back to the classic 4 annual PPV format.

__________________

Tyler Durden

I would prefer just 12 from the WWE, with brand specific ones (if they could stick to it) and just the 5 big combined shows.

With TNA I would prefer them to pair back to somewhere between 5 and 8.

__________________
A throne is just a bench wrapped in velvet

CGS

If They are going to keep it Tri Branded they need to cut down the number from 14 to atleast 12 if not smaller in order to give more time to build up between PPV's Between Summerslam & Armageddon all the PPV's were like 3 weeks apart from eachother. I don't feel that they should go back to single branded PPV's though since ECW don't have a big enough roster size to put on a 3 hour show. SD have the right mixture of Midcard and Main event stars but don't know how to use them and Raw has pratically no midcard scene.

__________________

Bobby Hill

They should never have more than ONE ppv a month!

neXus

dizzysosinister

wwe need to pull out sum ppvs lik night of champions and cyber sunday but @ the same time by pullin out ppvs the other ones pricing would go up also commentin on the cost of the ppv the only $50 ppv is wrestlemania where the rest is $35