Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,581 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I find that these days one of the main problems with WWE is that there is way too many PPV's in a calendar year and that because of it there isn't anywhere near enough time to build feuds so that they are really as big as some of them could be potentially. Next year there will be thirteen PPV's done over a year which is means the gap in between over the course of a year is less that four weeks which for me is crazy.

What i would like to see is a return to how it used to be in the early to mid 90's with less PPV's and more tv special show's which would boost ratings and allow us to see what are considered HUGE matches for this era on Raw and SmackDown. I know that WWE probably make the majority of their income through PPV's but the buyrates have gone backwards in a major way every single year since 2006 and with no major draw's outside of John Cena it is hard to see anyway for WWE to stop that from still happening.

How i would like to see the new WWE PPV format work out is to leave the big four PPV's of The Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series as they are because there are institutions when it comes to wrestling PPV's but i would also like to see The King of the Ring brought back as a PPV concept and then have either Extreme Rules because of it's gimmick concept or maybe something similar to Cyber Sunday which was obviously voted for by WWE fan's. The gap's in between PPV's would then be at least two months and that is a great amount of time to build feud's up properly so that they are seen as big as they should be.

WWE could offset the loss of thirteen PPV's a year to six by having Saturday Night's Main Event come back once a month which if loaded up like a PPV and with big title matches would be a big draw and whatever network was being used for it would do big ratings. I used to love watching WWF/WWE title matches like Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Undertaker on Raw or The Rock face Triple H or the Iron Man match between Kurt Angle and Brock Lesnar both on SmackDown.

People do not buy PPV's as much as they used to because we will see the same thing on PPV within a few months because WWE run out of feuds and matches on PPV because of how many there is in such a short space of time. I remember back in the day when a feud could see one match at WrestleMania and then the rematch happen at SummerSlam months afterwards and because of the build up it made you actually care, can you imagine having a WrestleMania match between John Cena and The Undertaker and then WWE building up towards the rematch at King of the Ring.

There is so much pressure on WWE creative now because they literally have three or four weeks to build a PPV calibre feud and then have to do it all over again whereas back in the day they had months in between PPV's which is why storylines back then were better as more time was available. In todays era Vince McMahon doesn't care too much because he has no real competition with TNA still way behind in the ratings so they just throw whatever they want together but before when WCW were around even before Nitro kicked off the storylines had so much more about them and the matches seemed so much bigger because of the time to build them and that is what i desperately want to see again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,523 Posts
to make WWE PPV better is to reduce it to 7 Mania Rumble SummerSlam Survior Series King Of The Ring Backlash and Vengance. Then do the Saturday Nights Main Event or a similar conecpt with huge matches that set up feuds or continue them. Remove Superstars from the tv schedule also cos it's a pointless show. Also have reasons to buy the PPV cos they just put the same matches on 3 straight PPVs cos they think people like it. Give us stuff we want to see not what you think we want
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,280 Posts
I think they're pretty close to the tipping point; they just need to cut two of the shows in the fall. January - August feels balanced, but this year, between September 19 and December 19, we'll have had FIVE pay per views, or an average of one PPV every 16.9 days. That's obscene.

Nobody orders the December show anyway - Armageddon never did all that well, TLC last year was abysmal, and December to Dismember got the lowest buyrate EVER for WWE. Cut out TLC and Over the Limit and move Hell in a Cell to June, and you've got an 11 show schedule, with a PPV every 33 days instead of the current 28 days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
Bring back Sunday Night Heat too.

I always liked watching that before the PPVs. At the very least, just bring it back on PPV nights.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
I know that WWE probably make the majority of their income through PPV's but the buyrates have gone backwards in a major way every single year since 2006 and with no major draw's outside of John Cena it is hard to see anyway for WWE to stop that from still happening.
You know wrong. Their biggest source are tours and house shows.

Also, your second point of "with no major draw's outside of Cena" is irrelevant. For example, Survivor Series 2005 (headlined by Team Raw vs. Team Smackdown), Survivor Series 2006 (headlined by Batista/Booker T), Survivor Series 2007 (headlined by Batista/Undertaker) all outdrew Survivor Series 2008 and 2009 which were headlined by Cena/Jericho - also including the much hyped return of Cena from a career ending injury - and Cena/Triple H/Shawn Michaels respectively.

There are other examples also of PPV's Cena has headlined not performing as well as when other stars have headlined.

Point I'm making?

It's not about Cena. It's about the product as a whole.

The WWE went through a surge back in 2005 because everything changed. Once that era started winding down, so did the rest of their business. It's a cycle which they cannot stop.

There's certainly an issue of there being too many PPV's. But here's the thing with that. Let's say they reduce their PPVs. There's no guarantee that if they cut them in half, more people will buy the rest. They might still botch their booking and right now especially it will be harder to appeal to fans to buy more as they're in the process of building new stars considering their biggest draws behind Cena have either left (Batista, Shawn Michaels) or are on their way out (Triple H, Undertaker).

They have a dedicated base which is always buying PPV shows. Hence why they increase prices and hold them so often. They're squeezing what they can out of them. While they focus their main efforts on Wrestlemania.

Sucks for us fans, yes. Because they rush feuds and give lots of crappy angles throughout the year. But the problem with reducing the PPVs is that it will reduce exposure, affect other promotional deals they have, and at the end, there is no guarantee the reduction of PPVs would actually help.

Vince has been playing things safe for years now. You won't see him take such a risk. At most, the logical thing would be to cut down the PPV shows by about two. The core issue still remains however, the lack of fueds to generate interest and creative needing to pick things up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,677 Posts
Less PPVs are a stupid way to go.

WWE is pretty much down in everything except merchandise (thank you John Cena)

Let's say a PPV is $45 and 141,000 buy it (I'll use that a minimum). That's $6,345,000 of a difference they will have to make it in the quarter. And with everything else sucking, where the hell is that going to come from. If you cut out three PPVs, you have to make up about 19 million in a year.

Bottom line: If people are stupid enough to actually buy the PPVs, I would say keep having them.

And by the way, that is a huge myth that because if there is a longer build period, the buyrates will not go up. The biggest problem is the writing sucks whether they have one week or eight weeks for build a card.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,598 Posts
These PPVs are still very profitable...so nothing will change until they start losing money.

12 a year at 39.95 (44.95 for big 4) was perfect IMO.Do any PPV companies offer a discount season ticket? This is how I would book the PPV calender:

Jan - Royal Rumble
Feb - No Way Out (final six Elimination Chamber main event)
Mar - Wrestlemania
Apr - Money in the Bank (2 MITB bouts)
May - Judgement Day
Jun - King of the Ring (held in Europe/winner headlines Summerslam)
Jul - Vengeance
Aug - SummerSlam
Sep - Unforgiven
Oct - Hell in a Cell (1 HIAC match...use blood once a year)
Nov - Survivor Series (using Bragging Rights concept)
Dec - Starrcade
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
These PPVs are still very profitable...so nothing will change until they start losing money.

12 a year at 39.95 (44.95 for big 4) was perfect IMO.Do any PPV companies offer a discount season ticket? This is how I would book the PPV calender:

Jan - Royal Rumble
Feb - No Way Out (final six Elimination Chamber main event)
Mar - Wrestlemania
Apr - Money in the Bank (2 MITB bouts)
May - Judgement Day
Jun - King of the Ring (held in Europe/winner headlines Summerslam)
Jul - Vengeance
Aug - SummerSlam
Sep - Unforgiven
Oct - Hell in a Cell (1 HIAC match...use blood once a year)
Nov - Survivor Series (using Bragging Rights concept)
Dec - Starrcade
This, this and exactly this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,581 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
You know wrong. Their biggest source are tours and house shows.
Also, your second point of "with no major draw's outside of Cena" is irrelevant. For example, Survivor Series 2005 (headlined by Team Raw vs. Team Smackdown), Survivor Series 2006 (headlined by Batista/Booker T), Survivor Series 2007 (headlined by Batista/Undertaker) all outdrew Survivor Series 2008 and 2009 which were headlined by Cena/Jericho - also including the much hyped return of Cena from a career ending injury - and Cena/Triple H/Shawn Michaels respectively.

There are other examples also of PPV's Cena has headlined not performing as well as when other stars have headlined.

Point I'm making?

It's not about Cena. It's about the product as a whole.The WWE went through a surge back in 2005 because everything changed. Once that era started winding down, so did the rest of their business. It's a cycle which they cannot stop.

There's certainly an issue of there being too many PPV's. But here's the thing with that. Let's say they reduce their PPVs. There's no guarantee that if they cut them in half, more people will buy the rest. They might still botch their booking and right now especially it will be harder to appeal to fans to buy more as they're in the process of building new stars considering their biggest draws behind Cena have either left (Batista, Shawn Michaels) or are on their way out (Triple H, Undertaker).

They have a dedicated base which is always buying PPV shows. Hence why they increase prices and hold them so often. They're squeezing what they can out of them. While they focus their main efforts on Wrestlemania.

Sucks for us fans, yes. Because they rush feuds and give lots of crappy angles throughout the year. But the problem with reducing the PPVs is that it will reduce exposure, affect other promotional deals they have, and at the end, there is no guarantee the reduction of PPVs would actually help.

Vince has been playing things safe for years now. You won't see him take such a risk. At most, the logical thing would be to cut down the PPV shows by about two. The core issue still remains however, the lack of fueds to generate interest and creative needing to pick things up.
I never said i know WWE make the majority of their money from PPV's i said i imagine they do but i don't work for WWE or pretend to know their income from certain things. Nor do i believe that WWE is all about WWE but your point about PPV's from years ago outdrawing one's that John Cena headlines made no sense because they are from years ago and i am talking about now and the future as there is no major draws outside of John Cena and if i'm wrong then please name them.

What you said about Vince McMahon creating feuds that will generate interest though goes hand in hand with what i said because it takes time to create a great feud and right now with thirteen or fourteen PPV's a year there isn't anywhere near enough time. Do you think that the feud between Bret Hart and Owen Hart was just thrown together or Steve Austin and Vince McMahon's feud just happened within a few weeks or The Undertaker and Kane's original feud was set up over a month or so, the answer is no and back the storylines were better because there was more time and less PPV's means more time to build feuds that generate HUGE interest and make them seem more meaningful rather than happenini once a year.

Less PPVs are a stupid way to go. WWE is pretty much down in everything except merchandise (thank you John Cena)

Let's say a PPV is $45 and 141,000 buy it (I'll use that a minimum). That's $6,345,000 of a difference they will have to make it in the quarter. And with everything else sucking, where the hell is that going to come from. If you cut out three PPVs, you have to make up about 19 million in a year.

Bottom line: If people are stupid enough to actually buy the PPVs, I would say keep having them.

And by the way, that is a huge myth that because if there is a longer build period, the buyrates will not go up. The biggest problem is the writing sucks whether they have one week or eight weeks for build a card.
The best feuds are one's that had a long storyline behind them or a great build up towards them like Bret Hart/Owen Hart in 1994 or Shawn Michaels/Bret Hart in 1997 or The Undertaker and Kane in their original feud or Steve Austin and The Rock. Have you never heard of the term quality over quantity because never has a term been so spot on as it is right now with the wrestling business in my opinion as we are seeing thirteen or fourteen PPV's a year now with the same feuds over and over because WWE have nothing else to offer.

I will give you an example of how feuds were kept fresh years ago in how Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker had both been working the main event scene for years before they ever had a feud or match with each other and the main event roster back then probably only had about five or six people over one roster. Because of their not being as many PPV's back then or the emphasis being more on the major four it allowed the biggest and best feuds to be used only at the biggest PPV's and we also saw a lot of HUGE matches on Raw.

If you go back to 1993 and 1994 you can see that WWE made Bret Hart and Owen Hart go all the way from WrestleMania 10 through to SummerSlam 1994 before having their rematch and it made the rematch a HUGE match with WWE also having Mr Perfect and Shawn Michaels go from WrestleMania 9 through to SummerSlam 1993 before having their match. The fact is that feuds can be made even bigger with a longer build up and anyone who believes that a feud is just as good with a three or four week build as a couple of months build has no idea at all about how to create a storyline that will generate interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
I kind of miss the old format they used to do when the brands split. You had Raw and Smackdown specific PPVs, allowing everyone on the card to get their spotlight. It also made the Big Four PPVs something special, as both brands were present.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
I never said i know WWE make the majority of their money from PPV's i said i imagine they do but i don't work for WWE or pretend to know their income from certain things. Nor do i believe that WWE is all about WWE but your point about PPV's from years ago outdrawing one's that John Cena headlines made no sense because they are from years ago and i am talking about now and the future as there is no major draws outside of John Cena and if i'm wrong then please name them.
The point was that it's not about Cena.

It's about the product as a whole. That isn't dependant on one person. It takes a number of factors.

We are in a transitional era.

It doesn't matter if WWE reduces PPV shows and tries to build meaningful storylines. Why? Because their meaningful storylines would have to be with guys like Wade, Sheamus, Miz, Alberto Del Rio etc.

Unproven stars who still need name value and their starpower built up.

All the other big feuds have been done. You can spend three months building up those feuds and the casual fans still won't pay up because those guys don't have anywhere near the starpower to get a solid paying audience, even if they're paired up with the likes of Cena, Orton, Triple H.

You're posing a high risk strategy that makes little sense business wise.

People like Cena and Batista at their peaks were drawing 400,000 buys only on occasion for WWE. This was with hot, well-written feuds behind them.

You think WWE reducing PPV's and throwing unproven guys with Cena and Orton will all of a sudden get them much higher than that to off-set the reduction in PPVs?

It won't. It'd be miraculous to break the 400,000 barrier on their normal PPVs with the starpower they have right now, even with well-built feuds behind them. Which would become even more pointless to do because their current set-up ends up averaging more than the potential of what you're suggesting.

Also, their financial information is available and they hold shareholder meetings and quarterly discussions to give us all that info. I'm not pretending to know their income. They have a whole website dedicated to that crap.
What you said about Vince McMahon creating feuds that will generate interest though goes hand in hand with what i said because it takes time to create a great feud and right now with thirteen or fourteen PPV's a year there isn't anywhere near enough time. Do you think that the feud between Bret Hart and Owen Hart was just thrown together or Steve Austin and Vince McMahon's feud just happened within a few weeks or The Undertaker and Kane's original feud was set up over a month or so, the answer is no and back the storylines were better because there was more time and less PPV's means more time to build feuds that generate HUGE interest and make them seem more meaningful rather than happenini once a year.
And do pray tell which huge meaningful feuds WWE will be able to book?

There is no chance those feuds would generate interest to get the figures high enough to off-set reducing the PPVs.

Your theory falls apart because WWE has had massive feuds take place on PPVs and even those didn't break a huge number, even with great storylines behind them.

Vengeance 2005 which had great storylines of Batista/Triple H (a huge drawing feud finishing up), Cena/Jericho/Christian, Angle/Shawn Michaels managed 420,000. There was a lot of starpower and solid build heading into that PPV.

You think setting up three month feuds with the newer talent is going to get some huge numbers like that? You're kidding yourself if you think so.

The direction they're taking right now is what's best for business. Short quick feuds that allow their newer stars to get some exposure and up their name value when feuding with established stars.

The diehard keep paying and they keep making their money.

This also allows them to use those new stars they've built up against the established veterans down the line in more long-term feuds. When their starpower and the product overall is used to the new change.

Why the heck you brought up Vince/Austin and Kane/Taker as defences for your argument is beyond me. It doesn't even make sense. Circumstances are not even comparable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
wow dude thanks for the term paper. 11 ppvs would be ideal all profits and money bs aside. One a month except March to build up Mania as the centerpiece of the year it is for them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Except 11 PPVs is not what the OP is suggesting and it's not what I was discussing with him. Had you actually read and understood what was being discussed, maybe you would've caught onto that. You're free to leave your opinion but if you're going to comment on my post, at least ensure you actually understand what was being said.
 

·
Student of the game? I am the f***in' Game!!
Joined
·
8,351 Posts
Growing up in the attitude era, I am admittedly spoiled by 12 ppv's a year. Anything less, I wouldn't have the patience. Admittedly.

The writing is on the wall. Too many ppv's. Feuds built around gimmicks instead of vice versa. Lack of attention towards under carders. Expensive.

But WWE can get away with it. WWE wrestlers already wrestle 4 days a week. Adding one show every other week, would hardly dent there over bearing schedules. Even for a throw away ppv with abysmal buyrates, they could still churn up half a mill in revenue.

But WWE will feel the long term effects. I think they are feeling it right now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
1. the big events of wrestling have been and always will be the big five
Mania, Rumble, Survivor Series, Summerslam and King of The Ring

2.lets keep it at that, keep it simple

3.wrestling biggest weakness is when the football season starts up again so

4. keep it conciled to the first 3 fifths of the year as a whole season,

5. maybe even have an off season,

6. but keep the tv shows running if you really need to
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
476 Posts
End the brand extension to open up more potential matches. Dont book crappy ppvs. Get rid of gimmick ppvs. Gimmicks dont work, storyline and build does. I never would have imagined a day where there where three hell in a cell matches on one card where about a third of the participants shouldn't even be in the match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Really CapedCrus, someone can read and understand the op and not agree with it without re-posting everything he or she said and/or give a counterpoint about it given this is all opinionated. Don't confuse clear concise points with ignorance and not being able to give excruciating detailed answers. When people see that kind of long post, they tune out or skip it especially the kind of people the WWE targets. Clearly I preferred my idea because I didn't agree with him or you. All that said what's best for the business is anybody's guess given they are essentially a monopoly with their competitors (wrestling promotions) being miles and miles away from competing with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,523 Posts
WWE wont improve buy rates anytime soon. Business is down in America and is not what it was 10 years ago. Wrestling is at the state it was like it was in the period leading up to the Attitude Era and when it started to get hot business exploded. WWE needs to get rid of these pointless Gimmick PPVs their more about putting as many themed matches on the show than having feuds and rivalries on the cards. The only gimmick they need to set a PPV around is the Elimination Chamber as it's always one of the better WWE events on the year IMO. HIAC, Extreme Rules, MITB, TLC dont work especialy in the PG era it lowers the credibility the matches had during their prime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,581 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
End the brand extension to open up more potential matches. Dont book crappy ppvs. Get rid of gimmick ppvs. Gimmicks dont work, storyline and build does. I never would have imagined a day where there where three hell in a cell matches on one card where about a third of the participants shouldn't even be in the match.
Ending the brand extension would be a great start because WWE are so restricted in what they can put on a PPV card in the first place that we have to see the same feuds over and over at the bigger events and then see a lot of repeated feuds happen over and over at the lesser PPV's as well. By ending the brand extension we would see then younger wrestler's given a chance to work with all of the older and more established talent rather than having only three or four at most and this would do a better job in establishing younger talent than having so many PPV's so they can be built up qucikly.

Again though just by ending the brand extension you still have the same problem and that is that sooner rather than later the feuds have all been used up and because of there being literally 20 days or so in between PPV's over the course of the year none of them have had the correct amount of time to develop or build the feuds up so that they are as big as they should be. For me the only way to build a feud is to have time put into the storyline which needs time and for me 20 days leading up to a PPV just isn't enough time when in todays era there will usually be only one of the wrestler's who is even established.

There is an argument that the feud with John Cena and Wade Barrett is something that couter's my point because Wade Barrett was a complete rookie going into the feud and it has been the feud of the year but that is not a regular occurrence and has been a storyline that has taken up almost all of the writing team's time on top of the fact that John Cena is the biggest star in the company and the feud worked because of his star power. There are a lot of wrestler's who are really good and could have great feuds but have no time behind their feuds to build them up with John Morrison and Sheamus being a perfect example.

With the way the seperate brands are now with SmackDown wrestler's on Raw every week almost and there not being single brand PPV's anymore it would make sense to end the brand extension so that feuds could be showcased over two shows rather than once a week on whatever brand they are on and the wrestler's who didn't tv time on Raw would wrestle on SmackDown instead much like how wrestler's used to in between 1999 and 2002. Having one single roster again would allow the booking/writing team's for Raw and SmackDown to work as one team which would allow ideas to bounce around off of each other and maybe create storylines that would generate interest so for me the best thing would be to end the brand extension and then cut the amount of PPV's to six big PPV's and six or seven special Raw's or a show like Saturday Night's Main Event which would have PPV calibre show's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,888 Posts
If WWE were smart, they'd cash in on everyone streaming the PPV's nowadays, by having their own HD stream online, for a discounted price from the TV version. They'd make quite a bit of money off that I imagine.

Nothing stopping the fans from hooking up laptop to TV either, and having a HD stream on the TV.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top