Is PPV A Dying Business?

[300]

Has anybody got a link to a site that will give all of the WWF/WWE PPV numbers through the years? Like the one Ian posted from 2000 onwards on the front page?

[King Pitcos]

The most reasonable avenue for WWE to go down would be the idea of putting monthly supershows on their own network, then maybe putting "the big four" on PPV?

Yes. If "the big four" was guaranteed to bring in more money than "the big two and small twelve" (or whatever the current system is) does. Which it isn't. So it's rather unlikely. It'd be impossible to do monthly supershows anyway if you're trying to save everything big for pay-per-views every three months. It'd just be the same system as now, only less profitable. Because you'd be making fuck all on the supershows, and the pay-per-views would still seem missable because the supershows would've given half of it away already.

[Doctor Whos Next]

I think another problem is that shows like Hell in a Cell and Elimination chamber diminish their gimmicks somewhat.

 

To put it another way, Wrestler A, has had a long feud with wrestler B at their last match, there wasn't a decisive winner, so its announced at Armageddon that its going to be... Hell in a Cell!

 

On the other hand, wrestler A is feuding with wrestler B... oh by the way, because the Pay Per View is hell in a cell, they're going to wrestle in the cage.

 

Don't get me wrong... it can work for things like The Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank, because there is a prize at the end of those matches thats worth fighting for. Also, Survivor Series can be interesting, especially if they shake it up with never before seen teams etc.

 

But having a Hell in a Cell match for the sake of a Hell in a Cell match seems a bit... dull to me.

[Leary of Doom]

I think another problem is that shows like Hell in a Cell and Elimination chamber diminish their gimmicks somewhat.

 

To put it another way, Wrestler A, has had a long feud with wrestler B at their last match, there wasn't a decisive winner, so its announced at Armageddon that its going to be... Hell in a Cell!

 

On the other hand, wrestler A is feuding with wrestler B... oh by the way, because the Pay Per View is hell in a cell, they're going to wrestle in the cage.

 

Don't get me wrong... it can work for things like The Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank, because there is a prize at the end of those matches thats worth fighting for. Also, Survivor Series can be interesting, especially if they shake it up with never before seen teams etc.

 

But having a Hell in a Cell match for the sake of a Hell in a Cell match seems a bit... dull to me.

 

Completely agree, and last years TLC was overkill (personally, I thought the year before, with 1 table, 1 ladder, 1 chairs and one TLC match was fine). Who's going to care as much about the third ladder match of the

I personally think that they should stop this Raw supershow business, and have half the PPV's as brand only ones. I know Vince was burned with the December to Dismember one, but that one was a disaster beause it was a bad PPV, not because it was based around a brand.

 

The seperate brand PPV's, if done right, can give some much needed exposure to wrestlers who currently aren't getting onto PPV's when both brands are on one. I.e., would I like to see Yoshi Tatsu vs Tyson Kidd on a SD PPV? Yes. Will they get on a dual brand one? No. How are they meant to make new stars, when we are just seeing the same faces shuffled around each month?