Credit: WWE.comCredit: WWE.com
According to PWInsider.com, the company will have just 14 PPVs next year, down from 16 this year, while Money in the Bank will now be a dual-brand event that, much like Survivor Series and SummerSlam, will feature stars from both Raw and SmackDown. The November 27th edition of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports that WWE decided to reduce the number of PPVs because the format of having two PPVs per month (except on months with "Big Four" shows) added significant expenses but did not help increase the amount of WWE Network subscribers.
Credit: PWInsider.comCredit: PWInsider.com
One could also argue that the sheer volume of PPVs was simply too much for the average fan to handle, so WWE undoubtedly made the right decision by both reducing the number of PPVs and giving fans another major one in the form of the Money in the Bank. Although those were two steps in the right direction for WWE, there are still plenty more improvements that the company could make to its often burdensome PPV schedule.
Here are five ways WWE should consider altering its 2018 PPV schedule so fans can get the most bang for their buck.
Limit The Length Of The PPVs
Credit: WWE.comCredit: WWE.com
Much like the amount of pay-per-views, the length of them has often posed a huge problem for fans: WWE overload.
On pay-per-view weeks, fans are expected to sit through a three or four-hour pay-per-view on Sunday (plus a one to two-hour Kickoff pre-show), three-plus hours of Raw on Monday and then two hours of SmackDown on Tuesday. Throw in an NXT TakeOver on Saturday (four times a year or so), and it's borderline ridiculous just how many hours of content WWE can produce in a three or four-day span. But because fans don't want to miss one show (because, much like any episodic TV show, missing one episode is something they simply don't want to do), being a WWE fan can seem like a task more than a hobby.
Just consider that Cageside Seats, which keeps track of actual match time on PPVs, reports that barely above 50% of WWE PPVs consist of actual wrestling. The site also reports that the main card of WrestleMania 33 "lasted 5 hours, 10 minutes, and 41 seconds" and less than 45% of the show was actual wrestling, and that doesn't even take into consideration the two-hour Kickoff show, which often features repetitive video packages and segments that are completely unnecessary.
At what point is enough enough? Because when it comes to the sheer amount of content WWE produces for PPVs, it's often well past enough and deep into far too much.
Make The Money In The Bank Matches Themselves Cross-Branded
Credit: WWE.comCredit: WWE.com
Dual-branded shows typically generate significantly more interest than brand-specific ones.
If we look at Google search interest for three recent PPVs (Hell in a Cell, TLC and Survivor Series), it's clear that the cross-branded Survivor Series show generated much more interest than SmackDown's Hell in a Cell and Raw's TLC. In the case of TLC, it was actually much closer to Survivor Series, but why? Well, probably because the show featured a cross-brand dream match between Finn Balor and AJ Styles. The HIAC PPV, however, had a peak "interest over time" score of 54, which means that the PPV generated slightly more than half the amount of interest that Survivor Series (peak score of 100) did, despite the battle between Kevin Owens and Shane McMahon.
What's this tell us? Well, it's safe to assume that there is a ton of interest in not only cross-branded PPVs, but specifically, cross-branded matches. That's evidenced by the increased interest for Survivor Series, which was built entirely around the "battle of the brands" and featured multiple dream matches, including AJ Styles vs. Brock Lesnar and a star-studded traditional 5-on-5 match with the likes of Kurt Angle, John Cena and Triple H.
Since matches between stars from opposing brands rarely happen, it's clear that the "battle of the brands" concept is something fans really enjoy seeing. Thus, it would be wise to make the dual-branded Money in the Bank show one of only three shows (along with Survivor Series and Royal Rumble) where stars from opposing brands interact directly with one another because history says more fans will be interested in the PPV if that's the case.
">WWE has made two drastic improvements to its pay-per-view schedule for 2018.
Credit: WWE.comCredit: WWE.com
According to PWInsider.com, the company will have just 14 PPVs next year, down from 16 this year, while Money in the Bank will now be a dual-brand event that, much like Survivor Series and SummerSlam, will feature stars from both Raw and SmackDown. The November 27th edition of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports that WWE decided to reduce the number of PPVs because the format of having two PPVs per month (except on months with "Big Four" shows) added significant expenses but did not help increase the amount of WWE Network subscribers.
Credit: PWInsider.comCredit: PWInsider.com
One could also argue that the sheer volume of PPVs was simply too much for the average fan to handle, so WWE undoubtedly made the right decision by both reducing the number of PPVs and giving fans another major one in the form of the Money in the Bank. Although those were two steps in the right direction for WWE, there are still plenty more improvements that the company could make to its often burdensome PPV schedule.
Here are five ways WWE should consider altering its 2018 PPV schedule so fans can get the most bang for their buck.
Limit The Length Of The PPVs
Credit: WWE.comCredit: WWE.com
Much like the amount of pay-per-views, the length of them has often posed a huge problem for fans: WWE overload.
On pay-per-view weeks, fans are expected to sit through a three or four-hour pay-per-view on Sunday (plus a one to two-hour Kickoff pre-show), three-plus hours of Raw on Monday and then two hours of SmackDown on Tuesday. Throw in an NXT TakeOver on Saturday (four times a year or so), and it's borderline ridiculous just how many hours of content WWE can produce in a three or four-day span. But because fans don't want to miss one show (because, much like any episodic TV show, missing one episode is something they simply don't want to do), being a WWE fan can seem like a task more than a hobby.
Just consider that Cageside Seats, which keeps track of actual match time on PPVs, reports that barely above 50% of WWE PPVs consist of actual wrestling. The site also reports that the main card of WrestleMania 33 "lasted 5 hours, 10 minutes, and 41 seconds" and less than 45% of the show was actual wrestling, and that doesn't even take into consideration the two-hour Kickoff show, which often features repetitive video packages and segments that are completely unnecessary.
At what point is enough enough? Because when it comes to the sheer amount of content WWE produces for PPVs, it's often well past enough and deep into far too much.
Make The Money In The Bank Matches Themselves Cross-Branded
Credit: WWE.comCredit: WWE.com
Dual-branded shows typically generate significantly more interest than brand-specific ones.
If we look at Google search interest for three recent PPVs (Hell in a Cell, TLC and Survivor Series), it's clear that the cross-branded Survivor Series show generated much more interest than SmackDown's Hell in a Cell and Raw's TLC. In the case of TLC, it was actually much closer to Survivor Series, but why? Well, probably because the show featured a cross-brand dream match between Finn Balor and AJ Styles. The HIAC PPV, however, had a peak "interest over time" score of 54, which means that the PPV generated slightly more than half the amount of interest that Survivor Series (peak score of 100) did, despite the battle between Kevin Owens and Shane McMahon.
What's this tell us? Well, it's safe to assume that there is a ton of interest in not only cross-branded PPVs, but specifically, cross-branded matches. That's evidenced by the increased interest for Survivor Series, which was built entirely around the "battle of the brands" and featured multiple dream matches, including AJ Styles vs. Brock Lesnar and a star-studded traditional 5-on-5 match with the likes of Kurt Angle, John Cena and Triple H.
Since matches between stars from opposing brands rarely happen, it's clear that the "battle of the brands" concept is something fans really enjoy seeing. Thus, it would be wise to make the dual-branded Money in the Bank show one of only three shows (along with Survivor Series and Royal Rumble) where stars from opposing brands interact directly with one another because history says more fans will be interested in the PPV if that's the case.
Posting Komentar