The W
Views: 99934783
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.14 2216
The W - Pro Wrestling - Less is more...
This thread has 10 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(11520 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2012 days
Last activity: 1744 days
#1 Posted on
Word going around is next year there could be 17 WWE pay-per-views. That means there would be the 5 major ones (RR, WM, KOTR, SmrS, SS), for both shows, and 6 each for RAW and Smackdown. At a time for the WWE when ratings and buyrates for their shows are going down, why are they adding more? Personally I think if they were going to split up PPV's between the so called "brands" they should've done it at the beginning of the split, however adding five more PPV's is still a bad idea

I think what they need is less ppv's. Even 1 less could make a big difference. Why not keep the five major ones, and split up 6 ppv's for RAW and Smackdown each. 3 for RAW, 3 for Smackdown. Why do they need more ppv's? What happened to supercards. Why can't WWE try something like Clash of the Champions, or their own Saturday Night Main Event or Extreme Smackdown again?

More ppv's will not make things work. The reason ppv's are so low in quality now and poorly built up is because there are TOO MANY of them. I mean summerslam this year was better than any card they put together in about forever. And it showed that good buildup and hype for the show, along with compelling matches, and incredibly solid weekly shows lead to a great PPV.

Does WWE need SEVENTEEN PPV's a year, when 12 is already too much? No.



"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god."
-Darkseid
Promote this thread!
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 478 days
Last activity: 478 days
#2 Posted on
Actually, the plan is for an additional 7 to make it 19 ppvs. This is an extremely poor idea in the current environment, as the buyrates are already down, and they already have trouble figuring out how to book 1 ppv per month, imagine the difficulty of 2 per month.



Thank you Mr. Wanz for the check, now you get an AWA World Title Reign. But be careful, my boy Greg is a heat machine.
The Amazing Salami
Sujuk








Since: 23.5.02
From: Oklahoma

Since last post: 3787 days
Last activity: 3786 days
#3 Posted on
I agree with Vile. If the two brands were splitting the non-major PPVs there would be times when each show had two months between PPVs. This would make them much more compelling, IMHO. And the blowoffs at the majors could be even better.



"You're always 17 in your hometown." - Cross Canadian Ragweed
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2012 days
Last activity: 1744 days
#4 Posted on
My gawd, 19? Yeah that sounds like what I read, so that means it would be like 7 each, yes WWE has gone mad. This isn't the late 90's, wrestling's popularity hasn't peaked yet, it won't work. In fact, it will make ppv's just suck more than they have been recently.



"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god."
-Darkseid
The Sham
Kolbasz








Since: 20.1.02
From: Hamden, CT

Since last post: 1724 days
Last activity: 1076 days
#5 Posted on
I currently purchase all 12 PPVs every year. If WWE expands beyond that number, I will stop ordering the minor PPVs and only order the big 5...

UNLESS prices are lowered ($15 apiece for non-major PPV).

The title of the thread says it all... Less is more. Four shows do not really allow time for fueds to develop. Before the split, 8 shows seemed to be enough to build up the fueds. I know that they only had 4 shows per month before Smackdown and still pulled off 12 PPVs, but back then Heat meant something, and the roster was over-flowing with interesting characters.

The split was necessary, since the full WWE roster would not allow for any good character development, but holding 7 PPVs for each show in ADDITION to the big 5 (19) would definitely overexpose the current talent.

Hear this, Vince. If you increase the number of PPVs, you lose $245 of my money...

Holy shit... I spend $420/year on PPV. I need a full-time job.



"Cram it with walnuts, ugly!"- Mr. Homer Simpson
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3407 days
Last activity: 3187 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
I really don't like the idea of expanding PPV's in this general economic environment. However, this does push the split further along and helps create two separate brands which is not necessarily a bad thing. They have putzed around with this split since it happened and I am happy that they are finally taking the last step. This also forces some character development on both sides as they will have to come up with 8-10 matches for each PPV.

One more positive is that we might actually get 2 or 3 PPV cruiser matches from the Smackdown brand.





These commercials are superfine because they pay for the production costs of putting CHRIS MOTHERFUCKING BENOIT on my GODDAMN TV SCREEN! I will GO GREYHOUND! I am thinking OUTSIDE THE BUN! – Dean Rasmussen 8/1/2002 Smackdown Workrate Report
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
if they lowered the ppv price down to about $25, then they might be able to get away with it, otherwise, i think they might be getting overexposed a bit...



Currently suffering from Pink Eye. First, chicken pox at 20, now pink eye. What's next, the mumps?
That's just my 2.461 Yen.
R-D-Z
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
One major reason you will not see the PPV's split up so that each brand has less is that Vince would likely face locker room revolt is wrestlers only could expect PPV payoffs every 2 months. As for lowering the price of the split brand PPV ideas, I think it's kind of the same problem Meltzer discussed about house show tix a while back. If you lower the price, a lot of people will tend to think that they are getting lower quality merchandise, and thus be less inclined to order.



Bears Forget NFL Games go 60 minutes:
New Orleans 29, Chicago 23
Bears go to 2-1 (next at Buffalo)
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst








Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    One major reason you will not see the PPV's split up so that each brand has less is that Vince would likely face locker room revolt is wrestlers only could expect PPV payoffs every 2 months. As for lowering the price of the split brand PPV ideas, I think it's kind of the same problem Meltzer discussed about house show tix a while back. If you lower the price, a lot of people will tend to think that they are getting lower quality merchandise, and thus be less inclined to order.


While a certain value must be created for fans to think they're buying something special, they are paying for 1/2 of the WWE roster, so it's understandable that they would cut the price.

Although, any PPV is overpriced and not really worth paying for these days, all things considered.
BobHollySTILLRules
Bockwurst








Since: 3.1.02
From: C-Bus, Ohio

Since last post: 4383 days
Last activity: 4383 days
#10 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    One major reason you will not see the PPV's split up so that each brand has less is that Vince would likely face locker room revolt is wrestlers only could expect PPV payoffs every 2 months. As for lowering the price of the split brand PPV ideas, I think it's kind of the same problem Meltzer discussed about house show tix a while back. If you lower the price, a lot of people will tend to think that they are getting lower quality merchandise, and thus be less inclined to order.


If they add 7 PPV's, wouldn't the pay-offs go up (should the buyrates stay similar)? I mean, the money would only be split among the actual brand and not the entire roster. Plus, split PPV's would allow for more people to get on. I'm not a big fan of the idea, but should they do it, I know I'll order them. I'll say I won't, but when push comes to shove, I'll order them. I can't watch TV shows that lead to something and than not watch that some thing.



"Fool me once, shame on...(pauses, thinks)...shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush


Columbus Blue Jackets: Ignite The Night (yeah, the motto sucks, but the team might not this year!)
Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#11 Posted on
I'm not a big fan of the idea, but should they do it, I know I'll order them. I'll say I won't, but when push comes to shove, I'll order them. I can't watch TV shows that lead to something and than not watch that some thing.

I know what you mean...which is why I may switch to only watching one show should they do this.

--K
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2012 days
Last activity: 1744 days
#12 Posted on
spf, you make a good point, except for one thing. Most ppv's now are way overpriced for what they give you, the most recent Summerslam probably being the exception. Wrestlemania this year was a total ripoff. It was like a 4 hour show for like over 40 dollars, and there was less than 2 hours of wrestling, most of which was crap.

So if WWE adds 7 more ppv's at a time when they are in decline, where shows and PPV's seem to frequently be lame, how will that help? Keep in mind, the 5 major ppv's are still combined, so that's 14 other ppv's. meaning that's 7 for each brand. so, for one wrestler it could be about 12 ppv's a year. now, isn't a large part of a wrestler's ppv bonus, have to do with the buyrate?






"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god."
-Darkseid
Faust
Salami








Since: 27.7.02

Since last post: 4383 days
Last activity: 4328 days
#13 Posted on
My first thought: way too many!

My second thought: More opportunites for rising stars, maybe?

I don't know . . . it does *seem* like overkill.





"And in front of the entire world, I want to show my little boy that sometimes - just sometimes, you have to FIGHT to be a man." - Michael S. Hickenbottom, the man who does not take part in angles that conflict with his religion, swearing violent revenge on HHH in full view of his two-year-old son. 11:06 PM, EST. 08/05/02. This angle, which has gone from being a "clean" wrestling match to an all-out unsanctioned street fight for bloody revenge is apparently sponsored by the book of Joshua.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#14 Posted on
Vile1, I agree that they are wickedly overpriced, but according to a lot of people on the net these days, as long as top draws like HHH and UT are highlighted, all the marks will feel like they are getting their money's worth, and that's what really counts, right?



Bears Forget NFL Games go 60 minutes:
New Orleans 29, Chicago 23
Bears go to 2-1 (next at Buffalo)
mrHysteria
Weisswurst








Since: 16.7.02
From: Richmond, BC

Since last post: 3859 days
Last activity: 3131 days
#15 Posted on
maybe it's as easy as thinking "more money spent on wwe ppv = less money available to spend on tna-nwa ppv". so let's have more wwe ppv's.

my personal reasoning for not buying tna-nwa is because it is on so frequently... if the product is good and you get hooked, that's a lot of $ out of your pocket quickly. could happen with the wwe too... people will still watch the free RAW and Smackdown, but might get used to not buying ppv's if they'll be seing free recaps of them so frequently.



Was Alderaan the leading supplier of Tinker Toys?

Stephanie
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI

Since last post: 520 days
Last activity: 12 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22

    Originally posted by BobHollySTILLRules
    If they add 7 PPV's, wouldn't the pay-offs go up (should the buyrates stay similar)?


There's the kicker - would buyrates stay similar? I have a feeling that, with seven more PPVs a year, the already-challenged writers of WWE will be unable to put together any type of proper build for these PPVs. As a result of poor build and higher cost, fewer people will see the reason to buy all of the PPVs, and buyrates will likely decrease. Then, the writers will start throwing out any type of pop-a-minute material to perk up the PPVs; the hardcore fans will see through these manuverings and not order the really chintzy PPVs, further dropping buyrates and fueling the writers' desparation.

The end result? NWA-TNA-quality PPVs for $34.95. I'll pass, thank you.

Steph



I'm going twenty-four hours a day...I can't seem to stop
- "Turn Up The Radio", Autograph
NickBockwinkelFan
Frankfurter








Since: 10.4.02
From: New York City, NY

Since last post: 921 days
Last activity: 2 days
#17 Posted on
They're kidding right? I don't even order the big 5 anymore, just Mania, SummerSlam and the Rumble. The brand extension is an absolute failure, giving us Bubba Ray Dudley, Bradshaw or what ever curtain jerker du jour in the main event. 3 of the 4 faces that defined the WWF (Austin, Rock, Foley) no longer work for Vince and the fourth, HHH, while still charasmatic is physically dibilitated. I'm so burned on the floundering and lack of direction. The watered down "split promotion" concept doesn't provide the "showcase" for roster depth. It simply turns Raw and Smackdown (two shows which used to feature the best of pro wrestling) into Metal and Jakked. Fuck Vince.

(edited by NickBockwinkelFan on 26.9.02 0606)


Ted Washington's foot injury






"Well, you can't involve friendship with business. It has to be one or the other. It's either business or friendship, or hit the bricks!"
--Life Lessons from "The Tao of Bobby the Brain Heenan" Uncensored 2000 preview


tomvejada
Andouille








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 4073 days
Last activity: 4073 days
#18 Posted on
from lordsofpain.net/index2.html via Dave Meltzer:

Rumor Killer - WWE not running 19 PPV's per year.

Rumors started earlier this week on other sites that WWE planned on running two PPV's a each month except the months of the big five PPV’s (Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King Of The Ring, SummerSlam, Survivor Series).

Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter did some research and said on Wrestling Classics Message Board "Just checked. No plans. They recognize this is not the right business environment to start running more PPV events."

Credit: Dave Meltzer







"I just got pinned by a friggin twelve-year-old."

Kurt Angle
The Sham
Kolbasz








Since: 20.1.02
From: Hamden, CT

Since last post: 1724 days
Last activity: 1076 days
#19 Posted on
This does still beg the question: should we have single brand PPV? I think so. Start it in December or February...

JAN Royal Rumble
FEB raw
MAR Wrestlemania
APR sd
MAY raw
JUN King of the Ring
JUL sd
AUG Summer Slam
SEP raw
OCT sd
NOV Survivor Series
DEC raw

The following year, the brands would switch places on the list. I would go ahead and give the December PPV completely to Smackdown this year and use this schedule next year. That gives Raw until February to get things together.



"Cram it with walnuts, ugly!"- Mr. Homer Simpson
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2012 days
Last activity: 1744 days
#20 Posted on
You really think the "brand extension" will last that long?



"I am many things Kal-El, but here I am god."
-Darkseid
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: "Fake WWE" show?
Next thread: This weeks Ratings = positive spin
Previous thread: Ultimo Dragon + WWE = 2003?
(11520 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Since you asked nicely. (And I thought I was only doing it on this one thread.) Please credit myself and Slashwrestling when posting this news elsewhere.
- BenoitFan7, smarks (2002)
Related threads: Nowinski is out for 4-6 weeks - "Last hardcore match" - Farewell X-Pac - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - Less is more...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.466 seconds.