|
Post by joeman on Dec 30, 2007 17:12:35 GMT -5
I have seen a lot of posts over the last couple of months stating that the WWE should reduce the PPV's to 4 or 5 a year. The belief is that storylines will be developed more and hence bigger buyrates to compensate from the missing revenue the WWE gets from their monthly revenues.
In order to break even as far as revenue, buy rates in the four PPVS have to be at least three times the amount as it is now.. That is a big, almost impossible goal to reach, since wrestling itself isn't as big as it was in the Attitude Era. With low revenue in PPV's, you get a lot of angry wrestlers since most of the money comes from PPV bonuses. Also, the WWE can't showcase all of your talent in an 8 or 9 card PPV, which leaves a lot of talent unhappy due to not getting the money. Shawn Stasiak, for example, preferred WCW to WWF due to working PPV's since he is getting money.
WWE earns their money on merchandise, PPV's buys, venue events, but not on ratings, which is a lot of people fixated about. Ratings are only good for the WWE so they can get revenue from the sponsors they advertise on TV. I believe for this reason, resorting back to a 4 PPV schedule is a bad idea.
What do you guys think?
|
|
franchisedavis
Unicron
Called it.
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,581
|
Post by franchisedavis on Dec 30, 2007 17:15:01 GMT -5
I agree but I think they should take the big 4 and make them an extra hour like Wrestlemania has been in the past. That way a lot more talent is being used.
|
|
|
Post by maxx420 on Dec 30, 2007 17:17:22 GMT -5
While having so few PPVs would be bad for business, WWE could probably do with dropping one or two shows. There was a period where there were about 3 PPVs shown in a 6-week timeframe a few years ago. THAT is overkill & doesn't allow for much hype going from one show to the next.
How many PPVs does WWE do annually now? 14 or something?
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 30, 2007 17:20:21 GMT -5
I think it is 13 now.
What I liked about the Brand Split a few years ago is that a Brand's PPV was in a span of two months. While it isn't that much to develop, it was better than than a one month feud building we see today.
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Dec 30, 2007 17:26:35 GMT -5
While having so few PPVs would be bad for business, WWE could probably do with dropping one or two shows. There was a period where there were about 3 PPVs shown in a 6-week timeframe a few years ago. THAT is overkill & doesn't allow for much hype going from one show to the next. How many PPVs does WWE do annually now? 14 or something? They just dropped 2 this past year
|
|
|
Post by SassovsHart on Dec 30, 2007 17:33:22 GMT -5
While having so few PPVs would be bad for business, WWE could probably do with dropping one or two shows. There was a period where there were about 3 PPVs shown in a 6-week timeframe a few years ago. THAT is overkill & doesn't allow for much hype going from one show to the next. How many PPVs does WWE do annually now? 14 or something? They just dropped 2 this past year It's still 14 even without D2D and NYR. I think the novelty of Cyber Sunday has worn off (only did around 180,000 buys this year) and they should drop it to allow more buildup to Survivor Series, and they should drop ONS as well. There was only like a 2 week buildup to ONS, and it was basically a glorified version of WCW Uncensored this year. If they drop those two they'd be down to 12, and it would be a much better number to work with imo.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Dec 30, 2007 17:37:11 GMT -5
Also, not turning this into an Anti-TNA thread, but how come there are rarely posts on how TNA should reduce their PPVs to 4 a year?
|
|
|
Post by maxx420 on Dec 30, 2007 17:39:49 GMT -5
I think it is 13 now. What I liked about the Brand Split a few years ago is that a Brand's PPV was in a span of two months. While it isn't that much to develop, it was better than than a one month feud building we see today. Even then, though, I think they added a few more PPVs in 2004 (Great American Bash & Cyber Sunday/ Taboo Tuesday). It was all a bit too much & it meant they rvereted to the "one month build-up" again. As I mentioned earlier, I belive they went from Bad Blood (Raw) to GAB (SmackDown) to Vengeance (Raw) in a matter of weeks. That's oversaturating the market & I don't think those PPVs were among the most stellar WWE outings.
|
|
|
Post by WHATAMANOOOVER on Dec 30, 2007 17:41:26 GMT -5
It's all about supply and demand. As long as people purchase the PPVs, WWE will continue to do at least 12 a year.
|
|
|
Post by maxx420 on Dec 30, 2007 17:42:16 GMT -5
Also, not turning this into an Anti-TNA thread, but how come there are rarely posts on how TNA should reduce their PPVs to 4 a year? I guess TNA's PPvs aren't really doing that great. they need the revenue alot more than WWE? I'm just speculating. Usually TNA pulls out all the stops for PPVs, but they've been hit & miss this year. The last WWE PPV I watched just felt like an extended Raw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2007 17:49:17 GMT -5
There's absolutely no way that WWE can ever go back to producing four or five pay-per-view events a year. Never.
But I do think that they could cut down a little more. Maybe back down to one a month or slightly less. That way, the audience isn't having to pay out for two events in the same month, which is bound to increase WWE's buyrates.
If I had the opportunity, this is how I'd change things around:
January: Royal Rumble February: N/A * March: WrestleMania April: Backlash May: Judgment Day June: International PPV ** July: Vengeance August: Summerslam September: Cyber Sunday October: No Mercy November: Survivor Series December: The Night Of Champions ***
* This would be a Saturday Night's Main Event broadcast on NBC. It would get a bigger rating here, due to not having a PPV in February and being in between the Rumble and WrestleMania, two of the biggest PPVs of the year.
** The 'International PPV' would come from a different country every year. This gives WWE an opportunity to further increase their popularity in places such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and other countries. The publicity for these shows would be huge.
*** I liked the format of this year's NOC at Vengeance, so I'd give it another shot. Just a lighthearted way to end the year for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by maxx420 on Dec 30, 2007 17:54:07 GMT -5
There's absolutely no way that WWE can ever go back to producing four or five pay-per-view events a year. Never. But I do think that they could cut down a little more. Maybe back down to one a month or slightly less. That way, the audience isn't having to pay out for two events in the same month, which is bound to increase WWE's buyrates. If I had the opportunity, this is how I'd change things around: January: Royal Rumble February: N/A * March: WrestleMania April: Backlash May: Judgment Day June: International PPV ** July: Vengeance August: Summerslam September: Cyber Sunday October: No Mercy November: Survivor Series December: The Night Of Champions *** * This would be a Saturday Night's Main Event broadcast on NBC. It would get a bigger rating here, due to not having a PPV in February and being in between the Rumble and WrestleMania, two of the biggest PPVs of the year. ** The 'International PPV' would come from a different country every year. This gives WWE an opportunity to further increase their popularity in places such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and other countries. The publicity for these shows would be huge. *** I liked the format of this year's NOC at Vengeance, so I'd give it another shot. Just a lighthearted way to end the year for everyone. The international PPV idea isn't feasible due to timezones & spoilers. If a US resident can go & read the results online ("Oh... Triple H won again...") why would they bother ordering the PPV?
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Dec 30, 2007 18:08:32 GMT -5
Too much WWE on TV and PPV these days.
It might be good for business, but creatively it's a disaster.
They don't even have storylines anymore.
Just random people fighting each other briefly between skits and non-wrestling segments.
Title divisions are virtually invisible.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 30, 2007 18:25:37 GMT -5
Too much WWE on TV and PPV these days. It might be good for business, but creatively it's a disaster. They don't even have storylines anymore. Just random people fighting each other briefly between skits and non-wrestling segments. This is what I don't like about the format currently. Kane vs Big Daddy V for example is a feud with no storyline whatsoever. They trade victories week on week, interspersed with gimmick and tag matches at PPV, but there is absolutely no reason to want to see them go at it. It's these 'pointless victory' feuds that really get on my nerves. They have to do these and make out the wrestlers don't like each other in time for the PPV but even during the attitude era when there was 12 each match had an actual story going behind it. Wrestler A beats Wrestler B. Feud begins. B beats A, A beats B, B sneakily beats A. All with absolutely no reasoning or development behind it at all. All it would take is something like they are doing with Noble and Palumbo on Smackdown. Have Noble get more cocky and get a date with Michelle, and then Michelle starts to realise he is ok, leaving Chuck in the lurch and wanting to get at Noble more. They coud have done the pointless victory thing here, Noble beats Palumbo, Palumbo gets frustrated and beats him soon after. But they didn't, they developed it. With such a simple storyline as well, I can't understand why they don't do this for all/more feuds, at least for PPV build up or feuds that will go longer than a month. HBK vs Kennedy is another one. The feud starts for seemingly no reason (Kennedy saying HBK has had his shot hardly makes you feel these are natural rivals who want to get at each other) Kennedy does a promo, HBK interupts, they fight, HBK wins. They will probably go their seperate ways soon, and only came together just to rush some build up to hype a PPV. I can understand why they need to rush build up - because they need to do this amount of PPV's to make their money, but it just shows why the amount of them is stretching the quality of their product. If there was 10 or 11, even 12, it would give them a bit more time to develope and actually give us reasons to believe these guys hate each other, rather than simple being two random wrestlers who beat each other evenly with no more substance than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2007 18:26:18 GMT -5
There's absolutely no way that WWE can ever go back to producing four or five pay-per-view events a year. Never. But I do think that they could cut down a little more. Maybe back down to one a month or slightly less. That way, the audience isn't having to pay out for two events in the same month, which is bound to increase WWE's buyrates. If I had the opportunity, this is how I'd change things around: January: Royal Rumble February: N/A * March: WrestleMania April: Backlash May: Judgment Day June: International PPV ** July: Vengeance August: Summerslam September: Cyber Sunday October: No Mercy November: Survivor Series December: The Night Of Champions *** * This would be a Saturday Night's Main Event broadcast on NBC. It would get a bigger rating here, due to not having a PPV in February and being in between the Rumble and WrestleMania, two of the biggest PPVs of the year. ** The 'International PPV' would come from a different country every year. This gives WWE an opportunity to further increase their popularity in places such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and other countries. The publicity for these shows would be huge. *** I liked the format of this year's NOC at Vengeance, so I'd give it another shot. Just a lighthearted way to end the year for everyone. The international PPV idea isn't feasible due to timezones & spoilers. If a US resident can go & read the results online ("Oh... Triple H won again...") why would they bother ordering the PPV? whats the percentage of the average fans who actually look up spoilers? i dont think it can harm them and the crowds are usually a lot better across the seas so i dont see how it can hurt
|
|
|
Post by maxx420 on Dec 30, 2007 18:31:52 GMT -5
The international PPV idea isn't feasible due to timezones & spoilers. If a US resident can go & read the results online ("Oh... Triple H won again...") why would they bother ordering the PPV? whats the percentage of the average fans who actually look up spoilers? i dont think it can harm them and the crowds are usually a lot better across the seas so i dont see how it can hurt Good point. The hardcore WWE fans would probably still get it no matter what, casual fans might be tempted in by the "alternative audience"... All sorts of things I hadn't thought about. I suppose it's difficult to say unless it actually happens.
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Dec 30, 2007 18:35:21 GMT -5
I think people will buy anything. I guess the economy isn't doing so bad after all. buying assloads of ppvs, breaking box office records, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 30, 2007 18:39:53 GMT -5
Also, not turning this into an Anti-TNA thread, but how come there are rarely posts on how TNA should reduce their PPVs to 4 a year? Isn't TNA's tradition weekly PPV's? If that's the case, I can understand why the reverse isn't happening. I mean, WWE moved to a lot more, where TNA moved to a lot less...
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Dec 30, 2007 20:19:50 GMT -5
1 a month was just fine. They have enough time to build matches for every month and it doesn't become overkill.
|
|
Professor Chaos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bringer of Destruction and Maker of Doom
Posts: 16,332
|
Post by Professor Chaos on Dec 30, 2007 20:30:20 GMT -5
I miss the brand split PPV's when I could just buy the Raw ones. It's getting too expensive now to buy all of them.
|
|