WWE PPVS - Which ones will thrive and which will die?

geeky

Was going to post this in the Survivor Series thread, but it might be interesting to get views on what PPVs have a future now that WWE are clearly looking at them.

Survivor Series is no more (a 26.3% buyrate drop helps explain that) but which ones are up for the chop based on this?

PWTorch wrote:

PPV - buys (% increase/decrease vs. 2008 event)

-- WrestleMania 25 - 960,000 buys (down 9.3 percent)
-- Royal Rumble - 450,000 buys (down 15.6 percent)
-- Summerslam - 369,000 buys (down 22.6 percent)
-- Hell in a Cell - 283,000 buys (up 8.4 percent)
-- No Way Out - 272,000 buys (down 17.3 percent)
-- Night of Champions - 267,000 buys (down 2.2 percent)
-- Survivor Series - 235,000 buys (down 26.3 percent)
-- TLC PPV - 228,000 buys (up 18.1 percent)
-- Judgment Day - 228,000 buys (down 9.5 percent)
-- Extreme Rules - 213,000 buys (up 9.7 percent)
-- Backlash - 182,000 buys (down 9.0 percent)
-- Bragging Rights - 181,000 buys (up 18.3 percent)
-- The Bash - 178,000 buys (down 9.2 percent)
-- Breaking Point - 169,000 buys (down 19.1 percent)

To my mind, any PPV with declines of over 15 per cent has to be considered up for review. That includes the Royal Rumble, Summerfest, No Way Out, Breaking Point. I'd include The Bash in there because its 9.2% drop is from a very low base.

Of these, I'd say the Royal Rumble has the best chance of survival: its very significant from a storyline point of view, and an excellent way of generating feuds that carry through to Wrestlemania. Good 2010 numbers could do a world of good. The other four don't really have a unifying theme or personality.

Which ones are up for the chop, and what do people predict/want to replace them?

michael.etc...

Was it not already decided that Backlash,Judgement Day, The Bash, and Breaking Point are gone? (and No Way Out obviously).

D2D

michael.etc... wrote: »

Was it not already decided that Backlash,Judgement Day, The Bash, and Breaking Point are gone? (and No Way Out obviously).

Breaking Point is definetly gone, that did a horrible buy-rate even though it wasn't a bad PPV imo. Judgment Day was the only PPV missing when the 2010 PPV schedule came out. Backlash and The Bash were ment to be Extreme Rules and another gimmick PPV according to WWE's website but they pulled the schedule after Mania 26 today.

I can't see TLC doing a good buy at all this year

waltersobchak

I dont understand how WWE think changing the NAME of a PPV will increase buys for christ's sake.

D2D

waltersobchak wrote: »

I dont understand how WWE think changing the NAME of a PPV will increase buys for christ's sake.

Vince must think that PPV names like Hell in a Cell and TLC will bring in $$$$$$$

waltersobchak

Dare_2_defy wrote: »

Vince must think that PPV names like Hell in a Cell and TLC will bring in $$$$$$$

Its such a lazy way out by WWE imho.. Instead of giving us fans a reason to buy ie the storylines and the matches, they now just have too focus on the stipulations, and can just dial in the rest

Cactus Colm

waltersobchak wrote: »

Its such a lazy way out by WWE imho.. Instead of giving us fans a reason to buy ie the storylines and the matches, they now just have too focus on the stipulations, and can just dial in the rest

Well .. two of the big four ppv's were based around gimmick matches. The Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. And of course the King of the Ring was a gimmicked ppv.

The Royal Rumble and King of the Ring were my favourite ppv's. As was Survivor Series when they stuck by the gimmick.

I can certainly see the logic of behind using more gimmicked ppv's.

waltersobchak

Cactus Colm wrote: »

Well .. two of the big four ppv's were based around gimmick matches. The Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. And of course the King of the Ring was a gimmicked ppv.

The Royal Rumble and King of the Ring were my favourite ppv's. As was Survivor Series when they stuck by the gimmick.

I can certainly see the logic of behind using more gimmicked ppv's.

Thats 4 out of 14 PPV up until 2009. The Aura behind a gimmick PPV will be gone when theres 12 of them every year. This is going to harm them even more. A stipulation should be the end of a fued.. not the basis of it.

Rjd2

geeky wrote: »

Was going to post this in the Survivor Series thread, but it might be interesting to get views on what PPVs have a future now that WWE are clearly looking at them.

Survivor Series is no more (a 26.3% buyrate drop helps explain that) but which ones are up for the chop based on this?



To my mind, any PPV with declines of over 15 per cent has to be considered up for review. That includes the Royal Rumble, Summerfest, No Way Out, Breaking Point. I'd include The Bash in there because its 9.2% drop is from a very low base.

Of these, I'd say the Royal Rumble has the best chance of survival: its very significant from a storyline point of view, and an excellent way of generating feuds that carry through to Wrestlemania. Good 2010 numbers could do a world of good. The other four don't really have a unifying theme or personality.

Which ones are up for the chop, and what do people predict/want to replace them?

Summerfest was essentially a ton of rematches, Jeff v Punk, Cena v Orton and Rey v Dolph to name just a few. It’s interesting that in a year where the guest GM'S done wonders for the ratings, PPV business struggled.


The Raw before the Bash was the commercial free one and did a MONSTER rating but it did not translate into any extra buys. It does give some credence to the theory that while the guest hosts may get some casuals to tune in, overall its not great for business as for a lot of the time on the shows the focus was on the guest hosts, when they should instead have been totally building the show around the storylines.

They seem to have rectified that recently as well, just using the guest hosts for a few quick throwaway angles.

Penn

waltersobchak wrote: »

Thats 4 out of 14 PPV up until 2009. The Aura behind a gimmick PPV will be gone when theres 12 of them every year. This is going to harm them even more. A stipulation should be the end of a fued.. not the basis of it.

Exactly. You used to get chills when a fued had escalated to the point where it was announced that they'd have to have a Hell in a Cell match. Now you have a PPV dedicated to it with at least 3 HIAC matches.

Not you specifically Walter. Don't worry, I'm not blaming you. Well... not entirely

waltersobchak

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Exactly. You used to get chills when a fued had escalated to the point where it was announced that they'd have to have a Hell in a Cell match. Now you have a PPV dedicated to it with at least 3 HIAC matches.

Not you specifically Walter. Don't worry, I'm not blaming you. Well... not entirely

:pac::pac:

Yeah absolutely the example i can think of, is Orton and Undertaker in 2006(?) where the eventual blowoff to the fued was HIAC.. And was the logical conclusion to the fued also.. But that isnt the case now, especially when theres so many of the same matches on one card, It loses its appeal. Also what happens if one of the stip PPVs doesnt draw? Will they assume fans are sick of the HIAC or Elimination Chamber and start dropping those matches too??

Angron

Did the Bash have any specific gimmick?

I sorta expected Breaking Point to go, I mean the whole Submission/I Quit angle wasn't the most popular with people I talked to.. On the whole, I was indifferent to Bragging Rights, I preferred the Brand v Brand thing they did at Survivor Series, and an elimination match was more enjoyable (for me anyway)

<insert agreeing with the weakening of a gimmick match here>

D2D

Denny M wrote: »

Did the Bash have any specific gimmick?

Nope, just a normal PPV

2009 PPV's and gimmicks:

-- WrestleMania 25 - 960,000 buys (no gimmick)
-- Royal Rumble - 450,000 buys (the Rumble match)
-- Summerslam - 369,000 buys (no gimmick)
-- Hell in a Cell - 283,000 buys (3 HiaC matches)
-- No Way Out - 272,000 buys (2 Elimination Chamber matches)
-- Night of Champions - 267,000 buys (every title on the line)
-- Survivor Series - 235,000 buys (3 5 on 5 elimination tag matches)
-- TLC PPV - 228,000 buys (1, table, 1 ladder, 1 chair, 1 TLC match)
-- Judgment Day - 228,000 buys (no gimmick)
-- Extreme Rules - 213,000 buys (Every match was an Extreme rules match)
-- Backlash - 182,000 buys (no gimmick)
-- Bragging Rights - 181,000 buys (Team Raw vs. Team SD)
-- The Bash - 178,000 buys (no gimmick)
-- Breaking Point - 169,000 buys (2 submission matches)

Cactus Colm

waltersobchak wrote: »

Thats 4 out of 14 PPV up until 2009. The Aura behind a gimmick PPV will be gone when theres 12 of them every year. This is going to harm them even more. A stipulation should be the end of a fued.. not the basis of it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that half the original "Big 4" ppv's were based around gimmicks. WcW has had a few gimmick ppv's, and so does TNA. It's nothing new.

As far as I'm concerned the biggest problem WWE has in regards to PPV's is that they have far too many of them.

According to the first post 2009 had 14 PPV's. That is a crazy amount.

Over the course of twelve weeks, from Summerslam to Breaking Point there were 4 ppv's.