Is There Too Many Wrestling PPVS ?

Am Chile

Does anyone think there are far too many wrestling payperviews these days leaving the product overposure and a bit stale- 1989 to 1992 we only had four payperviews-1993 to 1995 we had five payperviews-1995 had ten payperviews-from 1996 onwards there was 12 payperviews to the present day-when I say too many ppvs leave things a bit stale-in 2009 we saw john cena wrestle randy orton four ppvs in a row-similar in 2010 we saw undertaker wrestle kane 3 ppvs in a row-to me having the same wrestlers wrestle each other multiple ppvs in a row is too stale-with so many ppvs also the build up to big matches on ppv are too short in the space of a few weeks-take the undertaker vs triple h build up from wrestlemania 27 they stared each other down a few times and then had a match and that was it-I remember the days when we had a big build up to ultimate warrior vs macho man randy savage at summerslam 92 over a longer period of time-I still look at wrestling the odd time but have lost a lot of Interest in it these last few years,

gnfnrhead

I think WWE had 14 at one stage. Either way, definitely too many PPV's especially if we're talking about TNA who get crap buy rates. Six, maybe eight, would be plenty but so long as they are making money, it won't be changing any time soon.

jaykhunter

GnFnR hit the nail on the head. Yes, of course there are too many. See how long they've been stretching out Cena vs Punk? We were supposed to get that done and dusted at SummerSlam, but it lasted practically the rest of the year. You don't see Randy Savage knocking on the door asking for a WM3 rematch! No, move on to the next feud!

The bottom line is that if WWE reduced their PPVs to 8-10, they'd not likely see a bump in PPV buyrates to compensate. So WWE get the most money (out of a poor product) by putting on too many shows and having an ok-buyrate, rather than having less PPVs with better buyrates. If WWE were concerned about the quality of their show, RAW wouldn't be 3 hours and they wouldn't have added Main Event!

I think a bigger factor that they'll never drop below 12 per year is that Vince would see it as a sign of weakness. EVEN if it would make business sense, his ego and mindset is still stuck in the Monday Night Wars.

A Primal Nut

Yep, as the others said, each PPV is still making lots of money. From the fan perspective in the USA, having to buy 12 PPVs to watch the entire product is harsh, but from a business point of view they know that even people who can't do that can still buy some of the top 4. For us in Europe, or for people who like to stream, the more PPVs the better. They can be quite exciting and I would hate to see them drag out main event buildups any more than 6 weeks.

The old days were different as there was less weekly shows also, so the buildup didn't seem too much.

However, in terms of buildup to PPVs in the current era I think 4-6 weeks is about right. If the main event superstars and writing were better (like in the Attitude Era) we wouldn't be complaining.

For example Mankind and The Rock had a WWE title match on 4 PPVs in a row in late 98-early 99 and also a couple of times on regular TV in the same period. By having different stipulations in each match and a really good storyline, people's interest was sustained. At Survivor Series this year (I haven't watched it yet) they should have added a stipulation to the Big Show-Sheamus match (No Dq, Last Man Standing, etc)?

That said the main issue I have what the PPVs is not the quality or the buildup but the sheer amount of money they are asking their American fans to handover for 12 PPVs. Putting a few of them on regular tv (instead of some of the three hour raws) but with the same buildup as a normal PPV would be nice but will never happen.

If I was in charge of TNA, I would suggest it might be a good idea to make some of their PPVs a regular tv show to advertise their shows to potential new fans.

DM_7

I don't think the number of PPVs is the problem. Go back in time and feuds lasted for months and it wasn't a problem. So I don't agree with the idea that Cena v Punk should have finished at Summerslam. There is nothing wrong with feuds and rivalry's going on for a long time, adding new people to the mix like they have with Ryback is sensible.

the issue is too much TV, this results in over exposure to the people feuding and the writers running through ideas way quicker than they would want in an ideal world. As everything is over exposed the PPVs appear less important.

also reducing the no of PPVs and keeping the same amount of TV will see the writers coming up with even more weak story's to extend feuds between PPVs. The PPVs could actually make writing an easier task imo - the pre PPV raw for example has a simple target of building the last bit of interest in the PPV matches, all the hard work of making the matches, coming up with reasons why people would feud is already done. The post PPV show can deal with what happened at the PPV. Both show must be easier than trying to write the 4th week of a 6 week gap between PPVs.

the groutch

in an ideal world there would be 7 PPVs
move Mania to Mid March, then have 2 between Mania & Summerslam, and one between Summerslam & Survivor Series.
they could then have more title matches on Raw/SD where the title could realistically change hands, and bump up TV ratings.
it would also force writers to work better on writing long-term feuds, rather than just throwing random guys into the title picture for a quick payoff 3 weeks later.

gnfnrhead

the groutch wrote: »

in an ideal world there would be 7 PPVs
move Mania to Mid March, then have 2 between Mania & Summerslam, and one between Summerslam & Survivor Series.
they could then have more title matches on Raw/SD where the title could realistically change hands, and bump up TV ratings.
it would also force writers to work better on writing long-term feuds, rather than just throwing random guys into the title picture for a quick payoff 3 weeks later.

Wrestlemania used to be mid March. Not sure why they changed as they dont do any extra build.

Jason Todd

the groutch wrote: »

in an ideal world there would be 7 PPVs
move Mania to Mid March, then have 2 between Mania & Summerslam, and one between Summerslam & Survivor Series.
they could then have more title matches on Raw/SD where the title could realistically change hands, and bump up TV ratings.
it would also force writers to work better on writing long-term feuds, rather than just throwing random guys into the title picture for a quick payoff 3 weeks later.

What about 6 PPV's (one every two months) so if there was a PPV in September and one in November, then have your 3hour RAW in the middle of October and make a bigger deal of it and to further feuds/have title matches and just go back to 2 hour RAW's the rest of the time and so on, keep the 3 hour RAW for just once between the PPV months?

gnfnrhead

Jason Todd wrote: »

What about 6 PPV's (one every two months) so if there was a PPV in September and one in November, then have your 3hour RAW in the middle of October and make a bigger deal of it and to further feuds/have title matches and just go back to 2 hour RAW's the rest of the time and so on, keep the 3 hour RAW for just once between the PPV months?

Or.... keep the three hours and have a FOUR hour Raw in between!!!! :pac:

GTR63

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Or.... keep the three hours and have a FOUR hour Raw in between!!!! :pac:

4 ****ing Hours! Your evil Gnfnrhead.

the groutch

GTR63 wrote: »

4 ****ing Hours! Your evil Gnfnrhead.

they'll probably need it when Hunter reappears

CastorTroy

Nah the 4 hour RAW will be for when Undertaker has to make his entrance.