PPV business being killed?

[midcardmaniac]

How can buyrates go up if PPV's are on every other week? I mean seriously, we had Survivor Series last week, ECW this week, Turning Point next week, followed by Armaggedon, then New year's Revolution, then Final Resolution, then the Royal Rumble, then Against All Odds, and then No Way Out all within a week or two of each other. Who's got the money to buy all of those? Jeez, does anyone wonder why buyrates haven't been improving?

[Efren]

Personally I dont get why people pay so much money to see those things, I get em for free on tv and still flip the channel during most of em.

[THEBUZZKILL]

I think there are way to many PPV's. From Genesis to Armageddeon 5 PPVs in a row and that is just crazy.

[8-BitAssassin]

I'm a broke mofo, so if I'm going to see a PPV, it's usually chipping $10 to see it at a friend's house. (Well, that combined with the fact that my current cable provider can't seem to get PPV ordering right.... rat bastiches.)

[iwchater]

They've been saying it's been killed for 10 years.
Think we should get over it

[stevolution]

I think there is a problem but it's coming from WWE. I mean they're tacking on PPVs left right and center. I mean they couldn't even properly book D2D. I bet all their energies were focused on Survivor Series and now they've had to scramble because they've suddenly realised they've got another PPV to book and it's this Sunday.

[JMA]

The situation makes you nostalgic for the past, when the WWF only had four or five PPVs.

[lovingway]

jma said:

The situation makes you nostalgic for the past, when the WWF only had four or five PPVs.

I agree. How much were PPVs then?

[nisi]

I don't think Vince cares if the buyrates are flat or even declining somewhat. More PPV's will still equal more money at the end of the day until they cost more to put on than they bring in..

[stevolution]

Sadly he's right. Vince claims to love the business but his practices over the past few years shown that to be far from true. I feel he's making the wrestling industry no better than Hollywood.

[messiah]

One word: torrents.

[Gillberg: 0-175]

I just seriously wanna see the buyrates for D2D. Does anyone buy a PPV for one match in the Pro Wrestling world? I know that MMA/Boxing cards are promoted over one match, but even then they'll at least announce the filler matches.

This PPV, they are putting the entire brand on the line by only promoting two matches.

[Triple Kelly]

Let's see, ordering a $40 ppv when it comes to DVD in a month for at least half of that price....

[8-BitAssassin]

fabulousswissfranc said:

Let's see, ordering a $40 ppv when it comes to DVD in a month for at least half of that price....

That's the way to go about it. No sense in shelling out $40 to see it AND $20 for the DVD. Not at the current level of quality most PPVs have.

[Mayonnaise]

I think the sheer number of PPVs, combined with the cost is killing it off. If you want one PPV a month then make the cheap (no more than $20) if you want the money than cut down and make each mean something.

When TNA was doing weekly PPVs they meant something each week (of course they had to since it was the companies only TV) and were reasonably priced. Even the WWE's were priced okay and meant something until the recent price jump (at which they also started having more inter promotional matches). Now the schedule will bite TNA and (to a smaller extent) WWE in the ass.

[destrucity]

There were more PPV events in 2000 than there were in 2006

[HMARK Center]

The thing is, the appeal of a pay per view, in large part, should be the "What's going to happen next?" appeal.

When PPV's draw huge numbers, it's typically because people expect to see the end to big angles, or perhaps the next big twists in an ongoing one. In other words, something needs to happen on the PPV that distinguishes it as an event that won't be on regular cable.

Not to say there shouldn't be great wrestling, or things that make you say "Wow, I know I paid for this, but I'd be willing to own this on DVD, too!", but a big part of the appeal should be "This is live, big stuff is happening, and it has a big show feel."

TNA is ok at that, but that's mainly because, with only an hour a week of airtime, they don't have much choice in the matter, anyway. I mean, hell, look how much airtime they had to give to angle-building on Impact this week, and the fact that we're not about to see any 20 minute matches on Impact any time soon.

With WWE, there are just so many "filler" PPVs that really offer very little appeal. You've got the "big four" or whatever, and they typically do good jobs of hyping them, but many of the rest just feel unneccessary.

[tartsonawire]

I've said it before, and I still stand by it. WWE needs to go back to the big 4, and that's it. TNA should also follow suit and stick to 3 or 4 per year.

[HMARK Center]

I don't think you can do that anymore, though.

For one thing, fans are beyond spoiled now after years of two hour Raws, even three hour Nitros, etc.

Also, it used to be back in the day that you could get away with not showcasing all your big talent all the time, but that just wouldn't fly these days.

However, if we could get back to a time where we had less PPV's, and more things like Clash of the Champions or Saturday Night's Main Event, then it might work.

[wwerules60]

I wouldnt even mind if WWE did one ppv every month like they used to.

The brand split really screwed things over, the Pay Per Views should show the best of the WWE not the same matches weve seen on Raw and Smackdown everyweek but a couple minutes longer.

All pay per views should be split brand and they shouldnt revolve their whole year around what is going to happen at Wrestlemania like they always seem to do.