Counter point: Doing more at the price cost it is in the US, make it more likely people will purchase less PPV's each time and overall lead to the company making less money? Though back in 2001 when PPV's were bigger this might actually not be the case
You never make up the difference by doing less, imo.
WWE managed over 150K buys for another decade after 2001 so I especially agree with that point.
And let’s say they cut them down and made 200K for 6. That’s a net loss of about 600K buys. Mania and SummerSlam and Royal Rumble still did 500K and up each year while still doing monthly PPV.
TNA did even less buys after they cut them down.
The only reason to cut PPV in my esteemation is if you can’t even afford the costs upfront to pay them, but if you can’t even do that, you probably won’t even be in business much longer. That’s what happened to ECW. It couldn’t afford its next PPV and they needed the money from that to keep afloat.
I’m in the minority for wanting monthly PPV. I accept this, but I do think financially speaking it makes little sense to cut them when you’re already struggling.
AEW can afford to do 4 because they do excellent at touring and merch and whatnot. Though, I do think they could add 2 PPV events, loss a little buys per show and still have a decent net positive, but that’s just me and I’m certainly fine if they don’t.