How many PPVs should the WWE have per year?

[RI Richmark]

Among the constant themes on this board is that the WWE has too many PPVs. So I ask what would be the proper number of yearly PPVs the WWE should have?

As for me, I definitely think 12 is too much I wouldn't want to go back to just 4. I think 8 would be a good number. Few enough that you could have enough time to build them up but not so few that the builds drag on forever.

But what do you think?

[Cranjis McBasketball]

I'll say 5-6, I think that's a bit high, but I could live with that range. You know, when I bother to follow the product these days.

[Emmet Russell]

I feel TNA had the right idea with four PPVs a year; it gives you ample time to build to those big events and have some TV specials in the meantime. Shame they f***ed it up by still having PPVs with matches thrown together at the last minute on them and having Sacrifice randomly becoming a PPV again for absolutely no reason.

[Malcolm]

6 PPVs a year. It should be a PPV every other month, kinda like how it was in one brand during the brand-split(aside from the big 4). Anything else in between can be filled with TV specials or something.

[Xineoph]

4-6 main 3 hour PPVs
The rest can be nice filler cheaper ones like they used to do with In Your House
Has it's own importance sometimes but no need to make massive pointless buildup

Also 90-120 minute Raws will make me happy
Just get smackdown/superstars promoted a bit more so people will watch that for lesser matches not involving only the main event

[Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer]

With the Network, doesn't the number of PPVs/events become sorta irrelevant? We get 12 PPVs, and a NXT special seemingly every quarter. For a monthly subscription I want as much new content as possible. If they were to drop the number of events, I don't see WWE having a cheaper subscription price for the months they do not have PPV either.

[Jiren]

I think 5-6

- Rumble
- Wrestlemania
- King of the ring (or keep concept but change the name)
- Summerslam
- survivor Series

[Deleted]

If they don't want to lose a bunch of WWE Network subs, 12.

[Deleted]

If you're not going to build them up as anything special, then none. They can't even build up a Raw to be anything decent anymore.

If you want ample time to get everything out there and make them must-see events, I say you can do 8-9. Some events may need to be bumped up or down a week, depending on holidays. (Never EVER have PPVs on a holiday or recognized special day...like Mother's Day.) But you get on an average 6-7 weeks between huge events to give everything the proper build.

Or you can completely forsake the December event and just create a "best of WWE" for the year, like Raw used to do if it happened to fall on New Year's Eve/Day. Have fans vote (for real) for the best matches (side-note, you can only see your wrestler on it once - now hogging up the list with Daniel Bryan/Cesaro matches, otherwise they'll pull a Kidman on you and you'll get Triple H all night long), then throw in a bunch of silly top fives. Top Five putdowns, top five moves, etc.

[Milkman Norm]

I vote 7-8. Had there been a 4-8 choice I would have done that. 8 seems a bit much to me honestly but I think the way creative works now going back to 4 shows a year would bomb because the aren't able to build long term slow burn angles (like a babyface that gets beatdown and comes back some time, I dunno some time in the further in the future than 8 days later) so having PPV's every 6 weeks or so would be a nice way to slow extend angles without going back to the old school model

[champviadq]

12.

One a month.

Less Shows = Less Money.

Less Shows = Less Merchandise, Less Attendance, Less Parking fees etc.

It's simple really.

[percymania]

Now that they don't cost $60 apiece, I like having 12 PPVs a year.

[Jiren]

OK keep the 12 BUT make the big 5 special rather than just "A PPV"

[DjZonk]

Jan - Royal Rumble
April - Wrestlemania
June - King of the Ring
August - Summerslam
November - Survivor Series

[MichaelMartini]

Before the network I would've said six, and they'd be WM, SS, SS, RR, King of the Ring and Extreme Rules, but now it might as well be twelve.

[Mid-Carder]

Aug 30, 2014 4:26:52 GMT -5 Jiren said:

I think 5-6

- Rumble
- Wrestlemania
- King of the ring (or keep concept but change the name)
- Summerslam
- survivor Series

Add Money in the Bank and this is perfect

[543Y2J]

8. Big 4 and an the lower tier 4 (though arguably MITB is in the big set now). To me you need the B ppvs to set apart from the Big one's, nothing is different if everything is the same effort put into the show and if you only have the Big one's as the only PPVs it doesn't make them special (if that makes sense)

[Hit Girl]

Four

The Royal Rumble (including an 8 man King of the Ring tournament)

Wrestlemania (sells itself)

Summerslam (including Money in the Bank)

Survivor Series (featuring the Elimination Chamber)

[Nickybojelais]

Disregarding the financial implications, my old school mindset says have the traditional 4 big PPVS.

Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
Summerslam (Featuring the Money in the Bank match)
Survivor Series

Interspersed between these PPVs I would have tv specials every couple of months featuring themes such as a King of the Ring Tournament, Scramble matches, Night of Champions etc.

[Pooh Carlson]

12. I hate when they have too much time in between PPVs. The two months or so they usually have between Elimination Chamber and Wrestlemania starts to DRAG.