How to Fix the WWE's PPV Problem, Part 2

Barrett/Cena might have more heat if it had more than two weeks of build
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Last week, I floated the idea of lowering the price point on WWE's PPVs so as to entice more people to buy, especially in this rough economy. While demand will go up as the price drops, the problem still remains of giving the fans something compelling to want to purchase month-in and month-out. No one is going to want to spend money every month on the same lineup of matches, continually devalued stipulations and titles and haphazardly built programs with little build behind them because of the short turnover between PPV events.

Even with expert build to PPV events, something that the WWE hasn't done a whole lot for an entire cards lately, it's a hard sell to get enough of the fanbase to buy 13 PPV events every year. The part to driving home the point that these are must-buy events is to make them feel premium. Averaging more than one PPV a month isn't the way to do that. Logically, the first place to start is to trim the number of events. But by how many?

The WWE has run 12 PPVs a year - one a month - for 15 years. Losing one PPV would probably be the knee-jerk reaction. I mean, why not go back to the last time the system "wasn't broken"? Well, I think the problems run deeper than that. As clichéd as it sounds, the times have changed. The WWE's roster is doubled, and they spend a lot more time tooting their own horn rather than putting focus on stories in the ring. I've written about it before, but it seems like the WWE writers don't have the capacity to write more than one story or feud per brand, or if they do, they can't do it well.

That's why I feel like they need to cut back the number of PPVs to eight per year. That gives six weeks between PPVs. That way, the writers wouldn't need to hammer in on the same story each week in order to make it a draw for the PPV. One week, you have one main event story, the "personal" feud, take center stage, and the next week, the World Championship feud comes to the foreground. What this does is it makes PPV matchups seem fresher and it gives more time for heat to build for the event.

When you give more time to build feuds, you give fans more of an incentive to buy PPVs anchored by wrestling matches and not gimmicks. Therefore, the gimmick-match themed PPVs can go out the window. So what PPVs make the cut? Here you go:

Early January: Royal Rumble

Obviously the Rumble goes here, but it gets moved up to earlier in the month for scheduling reasons.

Mid February: No Way Out

Give it back the old name, but keep ONE Elimination Chamber match for purposes of setting up the other World Championship match. The Chamber is that rare gimmick match (Money in the Bank being another one) that can stand on its own without needing a build-up for it. The name is a propos because there is no way out of the Chamber.

Beginning of April: WrestleMania

Duh

Mid May: Backlash

I always loved the Backlash name. It fits the period after WrestleMania so well because even though WM is a place for endings, there's usually a lot of fallout, especially if you get a big moment like Austin turning heel and joining with Vince McMahon. I understand wanting to have Extreme Rules here, since this is the one event where you potentially could have matches that warrant special gimmicks. Still, the no-DQ stuff is not only cheapened if everyone does it, but it's also too reminiscent of the old ECW, which as much as I and other fans love it is kind of going out of style.

Beginning of July: The Great American Bash

Again, it's all about the name. The GAB has just a great summery name. It invokes feelings of outdoor barbecues, fireworks, pool parties and horseshoes in the backyard. Hell, even for just the flavor of the summer, you could try to book an outdoor venue, something like a NASCAR track or a baseball field, but then again, there's always a threat for rain.

Mid August: SummerSlam

See WrestleMania

Beginning of October: Night of Champions

I know, I know, every PPV should be a night of Champions, but there's something about the name that evokes something greater than the normal PPV.

Mid November: Survivor Series

It's the PPV that just won't go away. The big deal was that it was on the chopping block after being made redundant by Bragging Rights last year, but the geniuses in WWE creative didn't find a replacement for it. I still like the idea of the eight-man tag matches, but I'd bring back the concept of having the "sole survivors" come back later on in the night in a winners-take-all elimination match.

Eight PPVs, all of which with great names and enough time beforehand to build them up. It's not hard. You can do a lot more with less, and in turn, the limited number of PPVs will make three-hour RAWs more special. And hell, it gives room to do specials on free TV, like, say, a return of Saturday Night's Main Event or Clash of Champions? Besides, what better way to gauge how a neophyte main eventer would do on PPV by having them do a dry run on a free TV special... but that's fodder for a whole other post.

While the opportunities for revenue would go down in the short term, with careful booking and turning each event into a must-see, marquee spectacle, the long-term benefits would mean more cash in Titan's pockets, but more importantly, it would mean a better wrestling product for us, the fans.

Remember you can contact TH and ask him questions about wrestling, life or anything else. Please refer to this post for contact information. He always takes questions!