So now that it's over......

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

What did you guys think about having 4 PPVs crammed into about a 2 month period of time?

 

I have to say I hope they give up on this. It totally watered down the product as there was really no time to build any of the last 2 PPVs up. I'm also heavily burned out on the PPVs as awhole. Instead of looking forward to Summerslam I find myself saying "oh man not another one".

[Mole 0]

They should have given Summerslam a bigger build up.

[Dark Age 0]

It was stupid. It will make them more money, which is all WWE cares about, but having just one a month could make more cash in the long run as it would allow longer build, better feuds and the chance to really sell a pay per view. They didn't wanna overshadow the other brand's pay per view, so we get last minute rush jobs with pointless matches made the weekend of the show. They should stick to one a month.

[Youth N Asia 0]

I hope this really comes back to screw them. None of them had a great buildup.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think it will. Summerslam's buyrate will probably suffer from people throwing money at the last 4 PPVs and being disappointed.

[Enigma 0]

It's all going to depend on GAB's buy rate.

 

If it's as abysmal as I suspect it will be, the Tuesday 10/19 RAW Halloween Havoc PPV may be off.

[Dark Age 0]

But three ppvs bringing in 200,000 buys each is better than than 2 bring in 250,000 each. Of course, the set, the arena, etc take up some costs as well, but overall I'd say they would make a bigger profit from this experiment than they would otherwise.

[cawthon777 0]

They should have given Summerslam a bigger build up.

 

Summer Slam hasn't had more than a month's build since 1998, when we pretty much knew 6 or so weeks beforehand that it would be Austin vs. Taker. And before 98, it hasn't had a ton of build since 1994.

 

This isn't anything new. I expect they'll throw a lot out there tonight to set up the top matches.

[Dark Age 0]

Well, Vengeance was earlier than it normally is, so they did plan to have a longer build. How many Raws are there between now and Slam?

[cawthon777 0]

Well, Vengeance was earlier than it normally is, so they did plan to have a longer build. How many Raws are there between now and Slam?

4. Summer Slam is on the 15th.

[Dark Age 0]

4? And they expect to build an entire card during this time? I thought there would have been atleast 5. How are they gonna build the Bradshaw/Taker feud (if it happens) in 3 shows when the feud hasn't even started?

[cawthon777 0]

They only need about 4 matches per brand. To build 4 matches over the course of a month should be pretty easy to do.

[Dark Age 0]

Building a WWE title match without any backstory so far in just THREE shows seems kinda stupid. Common sense would say to book the blow-off to Eddie/JBL.

[Guest Staravenger]

Well, UT/JBL is simple. "I want the title". Of course, everyone will be buying for HHH vs. Benoit, which is what I'm going to do, so I could care less about the SD Title Match

 

I thought There will be 5 RAW's before SSlam.....7/12, 7/19, 7/26, 8/2, 8/9, so that gives them an extra week for each show.

[Dark Age 0]

What I'm saying is it's a shitty way to get them on the show. Just do Eddie/JBL.

[AnonymousBroccoli 0]

They make more money on $40-$200 tickets for a PPV than $20-$50 for house shows as well.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Stick to 12 a year, WWE. Please. PPVs lose their special quality when you've got so many of them.

[SuperJerk 0]

They should have given Summerslam a bigger build up.

 

Summer Slam hasn't had more than a month's build since 1998, when we pretty much knew 6 or so weeks beforehand that it would be Austin vs. Taker. And before 98, it hasn't had a ton of build since 1994.

Summerslam 2002 had great build-up that started at King of the Ring that year.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Lesnar won the tournament and had a program with RVD until Vengeance, a month before SummerSlam. Same with every other year since 1998. A month to work with.

[SuperJerk 0]

Lesnar won the tournament and had a program with RVD until Vengeance, a month before SummerSlam. Same with every other year since 1998. A month to work with.

So naming Lesnar number one contender for Summerslam at KotR doesn't count as build up?????

 

 

Also remember that the seeds of the HBK/HHH feud started with their hallway reunion, and Shawn trying to get HHH to join the NWO the next night on Raw (which was rewritten into HHH just coming over to Raw after Nash tore his quad and the NWO was disbanded).

[Guest Staravenger]

Rock wasn't even champ until Vengeance, so how did they build Rock/Brock since KOTR?

[Dark Age 0]

Rock chased Heyman into the crowd when Heyman was saying Brock could take Rock.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rock wasn't even champ until Vengeance, so how did they build Rock/Brock since KOTR?

**Groans.**

 

edit: Dark Age already answered the question for me.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Y2Jerk

[Sideburnious 0]

I think this would have been a big money maker for WWE in 2000 when they were hot and they had high ratings as people would have been willing to fork out cash for the PPVs and they'd probably sell out the arenas.

With the low Tv ratings they have and the general population not interested they can expect to have too many buys

[SuperJerk 0]

The theory Vince is proceding from is that Raw and Smackdown do not completely share an audience (there was reportedly some Nielsen evidence to back this theory up at some point), and therefore he's not charging the same people twice, but two sets of people once.

 

The problem is that he doesn't realize that neither roster is strong enough on its own to support its own PPV market the way that Raw did by itself until late-1999.

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

Stick to 12 a year, WWE. Please. PPVs lose their special quality when you've got so many of them.

Stick to 5 a year IMO.

 

Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King of the Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series.

[Guest Staravenger]

Stick to 12 a year, WWE. Please. PPVs lose their special quality when you've got so many of them.

Stick to 5 a year IMO.

 

Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King of the Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series.

Those were the days....of course the 4 PPV's a year scenario wasn't too bad either.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Stick to 12 a year, WWE. Please. PPVs lose their special quality when you've got so many of them.

Stick to 5 a year IMO.

 

Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King of the Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series.

Those were the days....of course the 4 PPV's a year scenario wasn't too bad either.

I would have to agree... to a point. I would say do four seperates a year, and then Wrestlemania and Survivor Series as joint PPVs. It would give them more money, and allow for the seperate PPV's so each brand can have their own PPV's

[Australian Pride 0]

The problem is that there isn't enough difference between the brands. In the late nineties there was 24 PPV's per year (12 WWF, 12 WCW) and everything was fine. The reason was because there were WCW fans and there were WWF fans, and there some some who liked both companies. At the moment WWE isn't trying to seperate the fans and generate a different interest in each brand.

 

Smackdown has the tools to be a WCW type promotion, which succeeded with some big names on top and the smaller guys lighting up the undercard. Until they start to make Smackdown look completely different to Raw brand then the problem will persist.

 

It also doesnt help that the same people are running both brands. Sure the actually writing teams may be different but the main players are the same, and they are bringing the same mindset to both brands. If they put Stephanie in charge of Raw (pray as we might she's not losing her job anytime soon) and Paul Heyman in charge of Smackdown, with both of them answering directly to Vince only, it would allow for different ideas for each brand to be put in place.

 

It will never happen though so the whole system will likely continue to flounder.

[Guest Reservoir_Kitty]

I agree with the idea of bringing back the old school ways of just having the main PPVs during the year... one every month is an overkill, and what they've been doing lately is a superlative waste. There's no buildup time for them whatsoever, and they just seem like regular televised shows. There's nothing special with them, it's the same crap you can see if you tune into RAW or Smackdown each week.

 

They've been having so many of them lately that I forget they're even on. It's clear that they panic and do everything the last show before the PPV, and that's not good for business or entertainment. I really only care about the big ones - and those are the only ones we order.

 

Less PPVs would make the experience better, and it would hopefully put an end to these short and choppy (and seemingly pointless) 2 and 3 week feuds. It's better to have a buildup rather than just going the "I hate your ass, let's fight, oh hey, I'm better now" route.