WWE should drop to 6 PPV's anually

[LooseCannon25 0]

OK, I just think that the monthly ppv's are more bad than good for WWE. In my opinion they would be much better off having 6 PPV's a year (1 Every other month), . The PPV's can be Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, BackLash, King of the Ring, and SummerSlam. Just way too much TV and monthly PPV's is too too much and the same matches get boresome. If not, then with the brand extension staying in tact why not have 6 Raw and 6 SMackdown PPV's with them taking turns month to month. I think it would make things a lot fresher and there could be much better buildup to angles. Tell me what you guys think

[Guest bob_barron]

It's a good idea theory but they make a ton of money off the PPVs so I don't know if it'd be smart to drop them

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Bad idea. Right now the WWF needs all the revenue they can get. However, I do think they need to alternate PPVs, with Wrestlemania, KOTR, Summerslam & Royal Rumble (Survivor Series if they bring back the Survivor Series matches and have them RAW vs. Smackdown) being both brands.

[LooseCannon25 0]

Ok, how about this then...........you still have 12 PPV's a year..............but you can have 4 Raw PPv's, 4 SmackDown PPv's, and then have the Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, King of The Ring, and Survivor Series as Inter-Promotional PPV's

[Paul Stanley 0]

RAW Brand Presents: The Game!

 

Main Event: Triple H vs. Bubba Ray Dudley

 

---

 

You really want that?

[Guest EternallyLazy]

Yeah, that's not going to happen until WWE actually starts to lose money on the ppv's... even the lowest selling pay per view for WWE last year made them a profit. The moment they can't make enough to cover the production costs, then yeah they'll cut back

[Guest Fook_Hing_Ho]

Plus, with the split roster, neither side has enough talent to fill up a whole ppv by themselves.

[LooseCannon25 0]

Well elts look at it closer and see if they have enough talent to fill up a card:

RAW:

HHH, Steiner, Booker T, Jericho, Austin, Lance Storm, Regal, Christian, Test, Hurricane, Steven Richards, Batista, D-Lo Brown, MAven, Nowinski, Goldust, Raven, Kane, Jeff Hardy, Rico, dudley boys, 3mw........right there you have 24 guys and if you have 6 singles matches and 2 tag matches on a card thats easily enough to cover.

 

lets look at SmackDown:

Angle, Benoit, Big Show, Taker, Brock, Edge, Eddie Guerrero, Rey Mysterio, Charlie Haas, Shelton Benjamin, A-Train, The Rock (maybe), John Cena, Red Dog, Matt Hardy, Knoble, Tajiri, Kidman, Nunzio, B-2, Bill Demott, Shannon Moore, Chavo, Palumbo.....thats 24 Smackdown stars that can fill up a card, although you might have to have 2 cruiserweight matches on every card...hey that wouldnt bother me one bit

 

So they have enough superstars on each brand to have a PPV lineup, plus we get some fresh faces on those shows.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

PPVs are the only shows they can pack the areans with...plus some people will order all of them anyway.

 

So the smart thing for business is to do 12...although they could save the storylines and put on better shows if they cut to 6...but that's not what's important now, is it

[Guest Downhome]

Here is what I've wanted since the split...

 

1) For each brand, they get one PPV a month with ONLY the guys from their brand on it. It would make each PPV seem a bit different, and make each brand seem that much important, while giving the fans a true sense of seperation of said brands.

 

2) RAW would get Jan, SD Fed, RAW March, SD May. Doing this, RAW's "big show" of the year would be Wrestlemania", while the December PPV could be SD's PPV, which could be called Starcade once again. You could reverse this if you want, depending on what dirrection they allow both brands to go in.

 

...doing this, would not only make the illusion of speration seem more prevelent, but also would make for MUCH better buildup for each brands respective feuds. In the months of not having a PPV, each brand could have a type of TV special, involving a main event of a tag match, or something else as long as it furthers the build up to the big payoff at the PPV the next month.

[Guest HHHater]

I'd like to see the return of the 2-hour "In Your House" deals.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

I'd like to see the return of the 2-hour "In Your House" deals.

WWE already gives away 2 hour tv shows twice a week. And you know if they did the IYH like format they would still include angles and whatnot, so it's not like it'd be that much better

[Guest HHHater]

I'd rather pay less for a 2-hour pay-per-view. And this "Big 12" stuff is just B.S.

[Guest El Satanico]

I'd rather pay less for a 2-hour pay-per-view.

ahaha

 

You honestly believe that WWE would lower prices for a shorter PPV?

 

And if they did it would be back to $30 instead of the increased price of $35.

[Guest wwF1587]

i dont think either is going to happen though.. not until the ratings and attendance rates go up again.. I like the idea of just RAW/SD! pay per views (i am doing that in EWR) but it wont happen. Noone would be the RAW ppvs if they had any sense.