Why wait until a big 4 ppv for a MAJOR match?

[Ed MOTHERFUCKING G]

Rumble and mania are their own draws, and summerslam is just once a year...why would wwe wait to pull out ALL THE STOP for ppvs that can sell better with a decent card than a MITB/TLC/night of champions with a HISTORIC match?

Mitb 2011 for example

 

[3Rivers]

Only thing I can think of is when you don't have any viable competition you don't give a fukk

 

[Honga Ciganesta]

Meltzer's reasoning around the time of Punk's MiTB deal was that it would've done a better buyrate if it had been on a big four show, since they get more casual fans attention. His deal didn't get any of those fans to buy the show, the buy rate was up but only a moderate amount and it showed a limit or something along those lines. Brock/HHH Summerslam did better than Brock/Cena (I think), so there might be something in it.

 

[dh86]

Nothing wrong with that as long as u have another ready to go for the big shows

 

[jadillac]

1. No competition means they can coast & be lazy.
2. (I'm assuming) They never want to overshadow the big 4 ppvs by having other ppv outshine them
3. See #1. And remember back in the attitude era in 98-early 00, there were dope matches at every ppv. Fully Loaded, Breakdown, No Way Out, etc. all those PPV's had dope matches with great main events.

I'd never order a WWE ppv nowadays....you dont get ur money's worth

 

[HipHopStan]

I don't see what everyone is complaining about because this has actually been going on even during the MNW. My biggest examples are in early 2000. You would think Triple H (with Vince McMahon in his corner) vs. The Rock (with the returning Stone Cold Steve Austin in his corner) for the WWF Championship would be a Mania worthy match, but it actually happened at Backlash. You would think HHH vs. The Rock for the WWF Championship in an Iron Man Match would be a Mania worthy match, but that actually took place the following month, after Backlash, at Judgment Day.

Are they still calling this "A Match 11 Years in the Making" though (after we got spoon fed this feud from 2007-2009)? I missed RAW tonight.

 

[Jmare007]

Meltzer's reasoning around the time of Punk's MiTB deal was that it would've done a better buyrate if it had been on a big four show, since they get more casual fans attention. His deal didn't get any of those fans to buy the show, the buy rate was up but only a moderate amount and it showed a limit or something along those lines. Brock/HHH Summerslam did better than Brock/Cena (I think), so there might be something in it.

That's lazy though. If you consistently give people interesting matches and angles, they are gonna start buying "B" PPVs too. MITB just a gimmick PPV until Punk cut that promo just 2 weeks prior to the show, that's very little time to promote (he couldn't even get to the BS Report podcast until after Summerslam ).

After that the booking went to shyt - a shocker, I know - and we went back to irrelevant angles and feuds. But if you have 3 straight PPVs of interesting shyt, I guarantee you that for the 4th one there will be a big raise in buys (unless they fukk things up like with the Summer of Punk angle).

I get Meltzer's thinking. He asumes that WWE will never book things right and keep their momentum, so if they are lucky enough to stumble upon something special, they should milk it till a "big 4" PPV so they can get more buys. It's hard to argue against that but if we are going to be that negative, then what's the point