Upcoming PPV schedule

[Guest Fook]

As reported earlier, WWE will run 14 PPVs this year with two in June and two in October. The two June PPVs will be on June 13th in Louisville [RAW PPV] and June 27th in Norfolk [sD! PPV]. They will then have their July PPV on the 11th in Hartford [RAW PPV]. In October, they will have a PPV on the 10th [sD! PPV] and one on the 19th [RAW PPV]. The show on the 19th will be an experimental Tuesday PPV. Smackdown will either be taped on Wednesday or air live that week.

 

The plan is also to have all WWE PPVs become PPVs in the U.K. as well once WWE's current deal with BSKYB expires later this year. In the past, some of WWE's PPVs aired on free TV in the U.K.

 

Credit: Torch Newsletter

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Didn't Vince already try a Tuesday PPV in 91? And didn't it fail miserably despite a guaranteed Hogan title win? Why would he want to do it again and risk diluting the product even more?

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I only like an extra PPV in June so that WWE can bring back KOTR (I'm a huge mark for that PPV) and make it joint branded of course. I hope this dual PPV idea flops, its fucking retarded.

[cawthon777 0]

Didn't Vince already try a Tuesday PPV in 91? And didn't it fail miserably despite a guaranteed Hogan title win? Why would he want to do it again and risk diluting the product even more?

It had little to do with the day of the week it aired, it had more to do with the fact it was the 2nd WWF pay-per-view event in that 7-day span.

 

I don't know if I agree with "competing" pay-per-views. You're basically splitting the buyrates and forcing people to choose which show they want - making both events less profitable than they would be if they ran unopposed.

[Guest Fook]

Didn't Vince already try a Tuesday PPV in 91?  And didn't it fail miserably despite a guaranteed Hogan title win?  Why would he want to do it again and risk diluting the product even more?

It had little to do with the day of the week it aired, it had more to do with the fact it was the 2nd WWF pay-per-view event in that 7-day span.

If that's the case, then October PPVs arent' much better as it's 2 shows in a nine day span.

[Slickster 0]

Didn't Vince already try a Tuesday PPV in 91?  And didn't it fail miserably despite a guaranteed Hogan title win?  Why would he want to do it again and risk diluting the product even more?

It had little to do with the day of the week it aired, it had more to do with the fact it was the 2nd WWF pay-per-view event in that 7-day span.

 

I don't know if I agree with "competing" pay-per-views. You're basically splitting the buyrates and forcing people to choose which show they want - making both events less profitable than they would be if they ran unopposed.

Well, according to the WWE, 70% of WWE fans only watch one brand. So by those numbers most people wouldn't be choosing between two competing PPVs; they would only purchase their brand's PPV. That's also why the 'Tuesday in Texas' comparison doesn't hold up.

[cawthon777 0]

Well, according to the WWE, 70% of WWE fans only watch one brand. So by those numbers most people wouldn't be choosing between two competing PPVs; they would only purchase their brand's PPV.

Not sure if I buy that as fact or PR wishful thinking.

[Superstring 0]

Oh well, Vince was always going to catch on that the UK was willing to pay for PPV's sooner or later.

[JoeDirt 0]

This may be stupid, but is it guaranteed that those "extra" PPV's are going to be RAW and SD PPVs? Maybe they'll be for the new ECW fed Vince is tinkering with doing...

[Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes]

ECW is DEAD!

 

DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEEEEEEEAD!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Give Cruiserweights their own PPV. That will put butts in the seats. (Only person there will be me)

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

Regarding King of the Ring, couldn't they have just given us one less Raw-Brand Pay-Per-View?

 

Having to have two separate-Brand Pay-Per-Views in June and October shows how weak things are, or at least how weak they were. With the new Draft, they probably won't need them, especially in June, unless it really doesn't work out.

[Guest hunger4unger]

If they are not careful, WWE are going to kill their UK market. England isn't like America where fans are used to having to pay for a big show. No one is going to want to pay for a show that they have been getting for free for over 10 years except die hard fans.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

The English that have half a brain will realise that what they've been getting hasn't been a given, it's been a privilege.

 

If they don't want to pay for Pay-Per-Views, then that's their problem.

[clean rob 0]

The PPVs haven't been completely free up till now in the UK, as to watch them requires a Sky Sports package (£30/month) and 4 a year cost an extra £15 each.

 

I think the point hunger4unger is making is that with a sudden jump like that, from paying for 4 PPVs a year to 12 (or possibly 14), a lot of people are going to think 'Aah it's getting too expensive, I dont think I'll bother with PPVs anymore.'

 

It's an especially bad time to start trying this now as Sky has just started airing a FREE Wrestling Channel, which airs NWA:TNA, ROH, NOAH, NJPW and a shitload more for absolutely nothing. Granted, the shows are usually pretty old but it costs nothing and people will just start watching that if the cost of watching WWE goes up such a drastic rate.

[Guest hunger4unger]

I can't agree. Whether it is called a Pay Per View or not, it is not seen as a privilege to not have to pay for the large shows.

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

It's an especially bad time to start trying this now as Sky has just started airing a FREE Wrestling Channel, which airs NWA:TNA, ROH, NOAH, NJPW and a shitload more for absolutely nothing. Granted, the shows are usually pretty old but it costs nothing and people will just start watching that if the cost of watching WWE goes up such a drastic rate.

 

WWE is still the most over professional wrestling company in the world, hence a lot of people are still going to want to see it.

 

But also, it could have been rather smart of WWE to allow the Pay-Per-Views to be free in the U.K. - it entices more fans who get to see them for free, thus roping them in, and making them pay for it when the Kingdom isn't getting them for free anymore.

[clean rob 0]

Oh, people will still want to see it, but the question is are they going to be willing to pay what will be seen as a massive price increase for it? Especially as now, for the first time, there is actual competition for the WWE airing over here?

 

Edit: as for your second comment, if they are definitely going through with this then the best idea, IMO, is to keep the price low, say £9.99, to start with in order to keep people ordering the PPVs. Then slowly over time raise the price.

[Guest frowned]

I personally doubt that I'll be ordering it when I'm back in the UK... PPV prices on top of compulsory cable / satellite subscription is gonna hurt the old wallet. People order the current 4 per year just because they're one-offs (or 4-offs if you're gonna be picky) but if you're going to hit them with one or two a month when good quality wrestling is freely available elsewhere then I see significant fanbase losses.

[King Cucaracha 0]

If Silver Vision didn't take 3 or 4 months to bring out a DVD, I wouldn't bother ordering. The fact the UK now has to pay is fair I guess...but say goodbye to most of the remaining market over here, because most people I know are bored with the shows anyway. Putting a price tag on isn't going to help.

 

Still...good news for the Wrestling Channel if they get some decent advertising.

[Guest Random Hero]

Maybe they could justify it, if the shows were actually worth watching. Five years ago I wouldn't have hesitated to buy every PPV. Now I won't buy any, unless Wrestlemania XXI has a really strong card.

[TheFranchise 0]

Regarding the UK market, I think a point has to be given that we dont get live ppv's at ideal times.

 

We get them at 1am.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

If WWE thinks they're going to mooch more $ off me by having two extra PPVs that aren't necessary, they got another thing coming. I mean I don't care how good these will turn out, I'll keep my DVD collection for WWE's US PPVs at the traditional 12.

[The Decemberists 0]

Like Franchise has said, the main reason very, very, very few of us will now buy ppvs is that they're on at 1am. It's bad enough staying up, to have to pay as well -not going to happen. I'm sure it won't last long though if it gets introduced.

[AndrewTS 0]

"It had little to do with the day of the week it aired, it had more to do with the fact it was the 2nd WWF pay-per-view event in that 7-day span."

 

To be specific, it was supposed to be a test to see if weekly PPVs could fly. Hm.

 

I don't think the more casual UKers will bother paying for PPVs, but if they pay next to nothing now, then at least it would mean more revenue.

 

Although they should have a choice whether to watch it live or on a tape delay at a more reasonable time.

 

Although this might mean something will actually happen on the UK PPVs for once.

[clean rob 0]

Actually, there usually is a repeat showing of PPVs over here (or in the case of the 4 we pay for, several delayed viewings a day), but as we only have the choice of watching the PPV in the early hours of the morning, or on a tape delay, you'd think that that would decrease the 'value' of the PPVs for us.

 

Also, the WWE hasn't done UK PPVs for several years and doesn't seem to be planning on bringing them back, I think because of extremely low buyrates (funny that, I wonder if the fact that they were just glorified house shows had any connection to the buyrates...)

 

I agree that the WWE could make more revenue out of the UK market, they just need to be careful they don't make the prices skyrocket in order to keep the fans forking out for the PPVs.

[AndrewTS 0]

Also, the WWE hasn't done UK PPVs for several years and doesn't seem to be planning on bringing them back, I think because of extremely low buyrates (funny that, I wonder if the fact that they were just glorified house shows had any connection to the buyrates...)

 

Exactly. Well, I had the Rebellion 2001 DVD for a while, and while the matches weren't bad, it was stacked with title matches, but you were almost positive none of them were going to change hands.

[clean rob 0]

That, and the fact that there's no build at all for any of the matches. Expecting people who get 8 PPVs a year for no extra cost to fork out £15 for something like that is ludicrous.