Should TNA Shorten the Number of PPV's?

[CM Steel]

TNA/Impact Wrestling has a pay per-view every month, like how the WWE has. But the reason was why the WWF at the time raised there PPV's to one a month is because that they were in direct competition with the defunct WCW. Yeah the WWF won the "War" you would say. But their PPV schedule still remains at 12 a year.

TNA/Impact Wrestling begun doing the same with PPV's. But the majority of their PPV's aren't all that good. And the company loses money off viewers & buyrates of the PPV. While the "TNAtion" feels that their wasting money on the PPV. So for everyone's sake with the TNA product.

Should TNA shorten the # of PPV's?

 

[bittermang]

I think they both should.

Like you pointed out, it was largely the result of an arms race between the two companies (WCW and WWF), where the WWF was declared the last man standing. Now over in the E land, it's all hot shotted angles, and that's if we're lucky enough to see a story come to a conclusion and not just be dropped. I miss the days when feuds would carry across months, if not years, some even lasting entire careers: Sting/Flair, Dreamer/Raven.

It's worse for TNA because they don't have the depth to hot shot anything. You build depth by making things seem important, and you make things seem important by giving them time to build. Big events that demand five big deal matches every month don't give anything the time. Every three weeks you have to pull the trigger and deliver a conclusion on a story you've barely just started to tell. And if you overbook the finish with a screwy DQ and multiple run ins, you know, so you can protect both guys and keep the feud going, people just get mad that they paid for a card half full of disqualifications. And frankly they should be mad, because PPVs are delivered as bigger than free TV, big events where lines are settled, and they have a cost of entry associated to view them. They paid to watch screwy nonsense that happens on free TV all the time.

So yeah. I think they both should start cutting PPVs. Let things build and breathe again.

 

[Jeremy5144]

Given the fact that buys for non major TNA pay-per-views that don't deliver anything but waste they need to cut the number of PPVs to deliver better PPVs that don't suck.

I think 6 would be an ideal number I would keep Genesis, Lockdown, Slamversary, Destination X, Hardcore Justice and Bound for Glory would be ideal and get them in arenas that could fit between 3000-10000 people.

When WCW was growing they had Clash of the Champions which I believed helped alot because they were free and built towards their PPVs and were effective. The only reason that they were cancelled was that TBS decided to add Thunder. TNA needs at least 4 of these events.

I think ideally if it were possible to put 4 of these events on Showtime which is a sister station to Spike and get them either on Saturday Nights or on Sunday nights if Showtime would allow it. Given that Showtime is a pay network they may be interested in adding TNA but TNA as I agree need to become a major player and Showtime may work given that TNA could push the envelope and still have a quality show and add it to be commercial free.

If the rumors are true and WWE Network plans on being a pay-per month network and not a standard cable network such as NHL or NBA Network this could give reason to TNA that this could be an ideal revenue stream.

I think being able to put an event a bit better than a standard Impact Wrestling but not a Bound for Glory like event could enhance the TNA product. I think doing this would only help TNA in the long run given that WWE may ultimately be doing the same thing.

 

[rocksaviour]

WWE has cut back from even the 14/15 but that was when we had RAW and SD! exclusive shows. They could lose maybe a PPV in May and then another in December perhaps to bring it to 10.

If I was TNA I would cut it back to 8 and have them all (or at least 6) on the road and away from the Impact Zone! Surely taking it down to 8 shows would increase quality and then bring up the buyrate and overall revenue at the gate. Forgive if I'm wrong but it seemed about four (maybe five) years ago TNA was presently three matches on one card that were between combinations of wrestlers for the fourth straight show, talk about overkill.

 

[whoopin' ass]

both should drop them to around 6-8. ppvs used to be a big deal but now they are just another step in the storyline, no different than a Raw/Smackdown/Impact. remember the old days when people wouldn't meet on tv every week - they would have their match on the ppv but otherwise we wouldn't see them wrestling each other leading up to the match, or see the match on tv for free within a month of it being on ppv. these should be the climax of the storylines but with one a month, it just waters things down.

 

[HBsam31]

I think both should drop to around 6 or 8 a year. I like to but ppvs, but I can't possible afford all of them. I try to pick and choose which ones to buy judging by the card, but it can be hard. The last TNA ppv i bought was the one where Jeff hardy turned heel. It has been a while. Royal Rumble and Mania are staples for me, and recently I have been picking MITB over Summerslam for my summer ppv. Last year I got both though due to the push of Punk. What I am saying is if there were way less ppvs, and proper time was put into building them and giving us a good card then they would sell way better than they do now. Less can be more, and it has never been more true than in this case.

 

[ABMorales787]

No. There's a lot of reasons actually:

* It's their top source of revenue next to house shows since Impact admission is free.

* Are very low cost due to most being in the Impact Zone in contrast to WWE's 13-14 a month.

* With the exception of Bound For Glory, most TNA PPV's have at least a 4 week gap maybe 5 while some of WWE, especially the one's between SummerSlam and Survivor Series only have 3 weeks in gap with Wrestlemania being 5 to 6.

* They don't need to aim for half a mil in buyrates every PPV. As I said above, production is nearly non-existent. The PPV's only gain buyrates with TNA paying only to get the show on air meaning it's pretty cheap.

* WWE on the other hand needs to rent a location, prepare the set and so. With TNA, fans automatically come due to it being in the Impact Zone, so minimal story building is required on that regard. All TNA needs is to build a consistent string of solid PPV's to keep the train rolling.

 

[mrpops]

Both companies should drop it to 8 PPVs a year.

But more importantly both companies need to drop the prices of the ppvs. I dont mind shelling out $50+ for wrestlemania once a year, but everything else should be $30 max. It bothers me when it costs $40 for a ppv you get to watch once when the dvd of it comes out soon after for less.

TNA's ppv's arent as high quality yet and should be $20 max.

I loved the prices in the 90's. Every ppv was cheap and me and my buddies would watched them every single month. But now its just insane robbery to charge so much in our terrible economy.

 

[ABMorales787]

Both companies should drop it to 8 PPVs a year.

Why? Lose money to satisfy you?

But more importantly both companies need to drop the prices of the ppvs. I dont mind shelling out $50+ for wrestlemania once a year, but everything else should be $30 max. It bothers me when it costs $40 for a ppv you get to watch once when the dvd of it comes out soon after for less.

The reason PPV's are priced so high is because people buy them that high price. No one expects you to buy them all the time.

TNA's ppv's arent as high quality yet and should be $20 max.

Not a very positive attitude to admit flaws. To the people that shell out the $40 it's worth it. Cutting it in half risks cutting the revenue in half. Unless you have proof buys will actually double or more if prices go down so drastically which I highly doubt.

I loved the prices in the 90's. Every ppv was cheap and me and my buddies would watched them every single month. But now its just insane robbery to charge so much in our terrible economy.

Go to a sports bar then. If it's not broken, don't fix it.