What's the best number of pay-per-views for a company?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Snowman, Oct 12, 2013.

  1. Both major companies right now are having issues with their pay-per-view model.

    WWE is getting more heat than I can remember for the finishes to PPV's. People are all kinds of pissed after the last two shows gave us non-finishes, and we all can agree that a six week build to HIAC > Battleground existing.

    TNA cut down to 4 PPV's this year but it's lead to higher expectations for those few shows, but the build for them has been even more lackluster because the company was so focused on long-term planning and writing for TV that the PPVs almost felt forgotten.

    What do you think the best number of shows is? What should they do to replace some of these "B-shows"?

    Discuss.
     
  2. WWE: I would go with the following

    Royal Rumble January
    Elimination chamber February
    WM: April
    Extreme Rules May
    MITB June
    SS August
    HIAC October
    SSeries November
    TLC December
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Still a fan of the main 4 a year. At that point it's up to the bookers to build it properly. 12 a year is just too rushed and you have to have blowoff matches constantly instead of a good feud building properly. Everyone who's old enough to remember always loved the mega powers storyline. Iirc it took about a year for the whole thing to unfold and we were all riveted. So summarize, if the bookers/writers are good enough, 4 PPVs a year is great.
     
  4. 6 Fits well IMO. Have your big 4 plus TLC and Backlash. 2 months builds feuds without leaving too long to wait for the pay off.
     
  5. 6 to 8. And also a writing crew that can adapt well to whatever changes you made, unlike TNA's current one for example (heard there were some changes but the BFG build started this last week as you said), because I think 12 is waay to many and 4 may be very few because people normally expect storylines to go at a faster pace these days.
     
  6. I'd have 8 like this:

    Jan - Royal Rumble
    Feb - Elimination Chamber
    March
    April - Wrestlemania
    May - TLC
    June
    July - SummerSlam
    Aug - Money in the Bank
    Sep
    Oct - Survivor Series
    Nov - Extreme Rules
    Dec

    There you've got lots of time to build for the big four PPVs, and a gimmick PPV the month after to blow off feuds. I think that would be awesome. 4 is too few really and 12 is a joke.
     
  7. 4-6 Pay-Per-Views

    I would prefer to stick with the big 4 of Pay-Per-Views, because it would be great build up for these Pay-Per-Views, and they'll be uncommon instead of monthly. Having these rare Pay-Per-Views for only four times a year would give enough time for great build up, better planned finishes, and no reason to have random contenders for championships every left and right, they can properly build up a contender with that amount of time.

    Another is 6 Pay-Per-Views, just to have two extras so it wouldn't exactly be to short, and it would still be organized since they'll always keep the 2 month period in need of writing feuds and building storylines yearly. I say keep Elimination Chamber and Money in the Bank, since those are two Pay-Pew-Views that can be used to build up stars, although I would change the name since I'm not a fan of the whole Pay-Per-View named after a match setting. I would say bring back Armageddon for the Elimination Chamber, and bring back No Mercy for the Money in the Bank.
     
  8. Well, I didn't mind the Big Four back in the day - Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series (and King Of The Ring when it came in later, though by that time, it would only be two more years before they took the monthly PPV route with the In Your House PPVs) - but nowadays, I'd say anywhere from 6 to 8 PPVs would be my ideal number of shows in a perfect world.

    Royal Rumble would be at the middle or end of January. Putting it in the middle gives them more time to build towards Wrestlemania, especially since I'd skip Elimination Chamber in February. If the Rumble is the "Road To Wrestlemania" like it's promoted as, then why not immediately start building from one event straight into the next? They can easily configure some other method of qualifying for a title shot against whatever world champion doesn't have an opponent (or just unify the belts, solves the problem of that right there.) Then maybe Backlash at the first/middle of May in order to get a post-Wrestlemania PPV right off the bat. And I do mean just plain old Backlash, not anything like Extreme Rules where every match has a stipulation to it. Then Money In The Bank around the end of June or the first of July to start the summer off strong. Then Summerslam at the end of August, which gives them a nice two months of build. Then a PPV in between Summerslam and Survivor Series sometime around the first of October. Unforgiven? Judgment Day? No Mercy? Battleground? Just pick a good PPV name from the past. I might be against TLC or Hell In A Cell since I don't want another gimmick PPV right before Survivor Series, but I'm not 100% certain on that yet. Then Survivor Series at the end of November or first of December.

    The only thing I'm really unsure is whether to also put one in between Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble. You could argue that not slapping one in the middle of those two gives them more time to build to the Rumble, but the Rumble doesn't exactly need more than the usual build anyway. The card is always shortened because of the length of the Rumble match, and the Rumble match, which is the main attraction of the show, is easy to build towards. Just announce it and have everyone talk about how much they want to win it and that's it. For now though, I'll just keep it to 7.

    So...

    Royal Rumble (middle or end of January)
    Wrestlemania (first ten days of April somewhere)
    Backlash (first or middle of May)
    Money In The Bank (early July)
    Summerslam (end of August)
    TLC/Hell In A Cell/Unforgiven/Judgment Day/No Mercy/Battleground/Etc. (first of October)
    Survivor Series (end of November or first of December)
     
  9. Royal Rumble
    Elimination Chamber
    Wrestlemania
    Extreme Rules
    Money In The Bank
    Summerslam
    Night of Champions
    Survivor Series
    TLC

    9 PPVs with these as my choice. The main PPVs that we are used to. These shows will most likely not change.
     
  10. I second this. Lots of useless PPVs that end looking awful.
     
  11. WWE should have 6 PPVs a year, so one every two months. Same for TNA, unless they can actually get the PPVs cards right - which is mainly to due with how shit the roster is. We've seen too many of the same PPV matches now which sucks, but with 6 PPV's a year, they have 2 months to build for the PPV and they won't be rushing to do last minute booking if someone gets injured 2 weeks before, because you'll have like 5 weeks left.
     
  12. 4 is too little, and the amount WWE has is too much. I think if WWE skipped like 2-3 months of the year without a PPV it'd be good. As for TNA with their roster, the 4 PPV system seems to be working along with their little TV special events.
     
  13. Id say it depends on the company. WWE could have 12 wwe ppvs and 4 nxt ppvs and a one night only smackdown ppv and get away with it.

    TNA has 4 and this year the free ppv shit has been great IMO, and will be successful more and more as it continues. I dont watch enough of the other stuff to have an opinion.
     
  14. 17 PPVs. "Yeah, we gotta delivery of millions of dollars for a Vince McMahon".
     
  15. Have you seen NoC and Battlegrounds?

    I would rather spend money on a used needle and play the odds.
     
  16. I'm fine with 4 PPVs, but I'd be cool with 6 too.
     
  17. People still bought them. I didn't. But Vinny Mac could still be:kiss:with 15 big PPV sales.
     
  18. I'd prefer 6, but only when the company gets shit together. If they resign hogan, fuck them. Ill watch but im done saying what works better, as management clearly doesnt give a fuck about making good decisions.

    That being said, if they dont? They will have enough cash for a decent amount of indy wrestlers. Add in a REAL x-division feud/build ffs since it hasnt been worth shit since Ion got ass cancer. They could have King/Dutt/Morgan/Ryan/3 Kos who arent named velvet or mickie/rubix/any other indy who can make the midcard.

    TNA has a shitload of quality upper level talent. They also have assholes like sting and hogan, they finally got rid of Mickie and fucked up by giving ODB the title, and they will continue to treat her as good/slightly better than the x-division champ. That is what TNA needs more than PPV. THis Aces and 8s mem hogan dixie bullshit needs to end, and we need to have build in different divisions. TV title is with Abyss, WHILE THEY DRAG JOSEPH PARK OUT WEEK IN AND WEEK FUCKING OUT. Hes a fat, out of shape, pathetic, piece of shit lawyer, i get it. He learned in OVW, you didnt do shit for that in more than 2 impact shows. He is abyss, we get it.

    I think the best # of ppv's is based on the build of stars you make in your company. Pretending your fans are fucking idiots who dont deserve good matches with a build that makes them want to choose sides is just pathetic, and the last two months of WWE have been that exact same story.
     
  19. 6 a year would be perfect, you have a lot of time to build the storylines
    It would be like this:
    January: Royal rumble
    February
    march : Elimination Chamber
    april
    may: Wrestlemania
    june
    Juy: Extreme Rules
    August
    September:TLC
    october
    November :Survivor Series
    december
     
  20. 6 PPV's a year would be perfect.

    January - Royal Rumble
    March/April - WrestleMania
    June - Money in the Bank (move it from July)
    August - SummerSlam
    October - Hell in the Cell (early October)
    November - Survivor Series