Dixie Carter: TNA May Reduce Number of Pay-Per-Views to Six or Eight Per Year

[Uncle Sam]

Someone linked me to a summary of a recent Dixie Carter media conference on PWInsider. It's actually a rather interesting read with quite a few surprises. What caught my eye the most was these two points.

• Carter doesn't believe they need to do 12 PPVs a year and they are currently negotiating contracts on the PPV end.
• Carter said that she doesn't know what the perfect number of PPVs should be. 6-8 is a possibility.

http://www.pwinsider.com/article/68...m-dixie-carter-press-conference-call.html?p=1

Your typical WWE Wish List thread will mention reducing the number of pay-per-views per year: "Make it just Survivor Series, King of the Ring, Royal Rumble and WrestleMania!" - you know the sort. It's not something you often see in relation to TNA. Well, not as far as I recall.

I'm actually quite surprised by this. Of course, we need to see if it goes ahead and, if it does, whether it's a success or a folly, but I admire the big balls on Dixie Carter. So to speak.

Whereas I think WWE's pay-per-views thrive, financially at least, on their star power and atmosphere, TNA is more consistent across the board. WWE pay-per-views, tonally, are all over the place. Some are built to be these huge, superbowl type affairs; others are built to be "what if we did a pay-per-view with, um, lots of tables?" There's fat to be trimmed there. I'm not sure TNA suffers from this problem - this isn't as much of a eureka moment as it might be.

I'm certainly interested in where it might go though. I'd imagine the pay-per-views would be, assuming we went all the way down to six:

• Lockdown
• Slammiversary
• Destination X
• Bound For Glory
• Genesis
• Hardcore Justice

The face, and surprisingly firm breasts, of a revolutionary.

 

[Alex]

This certainly makes sense. These PPVs generally have the better fueds leading into them (because they seem to be TNA's big ones per se) and this would allow them to build fueds even more on tv which would make for a stronger tv program.

Also it probably helps with cost. Having six/eight PPVs a year probably helps them save a lot of money which they could put into marketing.

 

[ABMorales787]

TNA's PPV's already have a good margin of time between each other, so I really don't see that much of a need to cut down on them. However, if it's that other adjustments are being made, like say... Those PPV's being out of the Impact Zone, that would make it seem more marketable. This will also let TNA focus whatever crazy major shows they like to do on TV without the old "the PPV isn't being advertised" thing bugging them. It would certainly let KB sleep easier after watching TNA.

 

[TensaiFanIchiban]

Fine by me. Gives them more time to build up matches for ppvs.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Honestly, I'm relishing this for two reasons:

1. The obvious — it cuts cost for the company I love, who—if you put any stock into dirt sheet reports—"struggle" to sell buys, same as wrestling as a whole has been struggling with Pay-Per-View buys since the berth of the Internet and Internet streams started to plague the industry.

2. Story lines! Finally we'll see a lot more long-term builds and longer-term feuds that don't have to be pieced together in a mere three weeks, which I've always maintained was just not long enough and always felt rushed when a feud needed to have a culmination, or even a semi-culminating point to hit a PPV date.

I'd go with 6, this way the writing could allow for two-months at a time and then go with:

January — Genesis
March — Destination X
May — Lockdown
July — Slammiversary
September — Sacrifice
November — Bound For Glory

 

[MrHashasheen]

This sounds like great news to me, though I'm wondering if they'll keep Destination X as a PPV or simply move it to being a television special.

I mean, if they're doing a transition to lesser PPVs, spending months at a time focusing exclusively on the X-Division for the sake of one PPV just isn't going to fly.

 

[trashboy]

I think it's a great idea. Every time you turn around there's another ppv. Hopefully WWE will end up doing the same. Give us more time to build feuds and matches for them.

 

[blockanWo]

I mean, if they're doing a transition to lesser PPVs, spending months at a time focusing exclusively on the X-Division for the sake of one PPV just isn't going to fly.

But Destination X as a "X Division" pay per view has really only been afloat for one year with its second one, perhaps comming this year and I can already see there being a few non X Division guys on it. I smell a Aries v Bully Ray blow off or quite possibly a Champ v Champ with Bobby Roode if you believe his interview whilst in the UK.

Their big pay per views have traditionally been Genesis, Lockdown, Sacrifice. Slamiversary, Destination X and Bound for Glory. Thats 6 of your big ones. Space them 2 months apart and thats great. Better for storylines, the blow offs will mean more and most importantly title matches will become much, much more important (if they dont defend them on Impact...).

 

[Peaky1969]

Like alot of people, I think this is an excellent idea. A lot of people bash the christ out of TNA on here, some of it is deserved, but recent developments, I'm hoping, are pointing to the product getting better. truthfully, I don't "hate" it now...the fact they will be going live, and if this story about ppv comes to pass, it will make it far better. More build of storylines....the ppv's, depending on how many they have, will feel more "important"....

And the fact that Russo is now gone is a huge plus.....

Just my opinion.....

 

[TheWrestlo]

its good but bad at the same time, it good that TNA is taking time to feud on tv into account and as a lot of people on here have said, it cuts costing, but with all of TNAs current releases (Alex Shelley, Anthony Nese, Ric Flair, etc.) it makes TNA look like thier running out of money to compete against WWE, which in turn WWE could automaticlly pick up some of TNAs talent right out of the gate like thier doing with shelley, however when you put Cons against Pros, im gonna say its better for TNA to make this descion.

PPVs

January - Geneisis
March - Lockdown
May - Sacrifice
July - Slammiversery
September - No Surrender
November - Bound For Glory

if TNA decides to go with 8 ppvs im throwing Turning Point in December and against all odds in June

 

[Lowdown]

I'm all for it. Like IDR said it cuts cost for running monthly PPV's, and imagine the possible buildups to major events like Lockdown, BFG, and Destination X. On top of that you might see more premiere matches in between PPVs on Impact.

 

[Papa Pillman]

I also really like the idea of six PPVs, as the current state of professional wrestling makes the old monthly PPV format that we are used to far less feasible and palatable even for a company like the one up north, let alone one the size of TNA.

Also it is more difficult for TNA from the standpoint of only having two hours of televised wrestling a week in the United States to build up to their PPV events, making it even harder to promote twelve a year.

I hope that six is the number that it is settled on, and hopefully that would also mean that all six would be held outside of the Impact Zone.

Bischoff, Dixie, and others have been indicating for some time that they would like to see a decrease in the total number of PPVs, but they had to wait for the current PPV-provider contracts to be fulfilled.

 

[Reflection]

I would personally like them to have Eight pay-per-views a year. Six is too short, especially like one person said above, you cannot build-up X-Division guys for two months straight, and may I add, forget them once the PPV is up. I would say, Give 2 months of build-up for the "Big Four" PPV's each, and 1 month of build-up for the less-important four, in the remaining four months in hand. Here's my list:
January: Genesis
March: Lockdown
April: Sacrifice
June: Slammiversary
July: Destination-X
September:Hard Justice
October: Victory Road
December: Bound for Glory

Also another plus point the idea has, is for example, a wrestlers loses his match at one of the big PPVs. Then he can challenge his opponent to a rematch just the following month. And once that is over, they can spend 2 months in building up for the next big show.
I have kept the following PPVs out of the schedule, and reason for that:
Against all Odds: This, and Genesis are about the same level in terms of importance. However, everyone is already accustomed to the latter being the first PPV each time, so why not keep it going the way it is?
Final Resolution: It has the word "Final" connected to it, and thus cannot be placed in any slot other than December, which is a big disadvantage.
Turning Point and No Surrender: These are the two lest-important PPVs in TNA, like Over the Limit and Bragging Rights in WWE; that is why I kept them out.
What do you all think?

 

[blockanWo]

I'm all for it. Like IDR said it cuts cost for running monthly PPV's, and imagine the possible buildups to major events like Lockdown, BFG, and Destination X. On top of that you might see more premiere matches in between PPVs on Impact.

Thats just it. It means you can have Open Fight Night as youre big night inbetween PPVs where you have a really good standout title match or something. Gives more emphasis on PPVs because theres less of them and makes Impact more important.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

Hmm I have a feeling the common fan is going to shit all over this, "TNA is losing money so they have to cut PPV's" sort of thing but I approve of this idea if it's true. More buildup means hopefully better quality PPV's, and hopefully they be outside of the Impact Zone too so they're more special that way.

 

[Rayne]

This makes complete sense. The era of the one-month buildup is dead; you simply can't get people invested in a feud between two people in that short of a time. We seem to be on a 3-month buildup schedule now (in professional wrestling, in general), and two months is a great compromise between having too many PPV's and not enough.

It wouldn't surprise me if TNA/IW sold more PPV's over the course of a year total with this new format. Let's be honest; on any given pay-per-view, there are one, maybe two, rarely three matches that you give a shit about. (This goes for the WWE as well, I'm not picking on TNA/IW.) Oftentimes you'll go into the week of a PPV with only a couple of matches announced. Two months gives you more time to develop stories and let feuds simmer. Part of controlling price is scarcity. Make 'em want it, then give 'em a short window in which to buy it.

The PPV model is dying, anyhow; not just for professional wrestling, but for boxing and the UFC as well. (The UFC still does quite well on PPV, but it's only going to get easier to stream live content illegally, and the UFC won't be able to win the war they fight on that forever. They aren't trying to be on Fox for the sake of being on a big network, that's where they view the future of their business.) As PPV begins its long, slow decline, you have to adapt to changing conditions.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

Six PPVs could be a dangerous roll of the dice as it would be harder to maintain interest in an eight week buildup. There's the risk that viewers would tune out in the middle weeks, reasonably sure that they'll not miss too much as the big twists commonly occur in the immediate aftermath on one PPV or in the weeks immediate to the next event.

Even eight PPVS could be dodgy, 6 weeks has become the traditional Elimination Chamber to Wrestlemania stretch and, even with the Rock's assistance, RAW's viewing figures were far from awe inspiring (they dropped about half a point from the previous year).

February 20th: 3.24 (4.63m)
February 27th: 3.14 (4.64m)
March 5th: 3.23 (4.61m)
March 12th: 3.29 (4.84m)
March 19th: 3.10 (4.38m)
March 26th: 3.05 (4.44m)

Now, the stretch from Mania to Extreme Rules:-

April 2nd: 3.43 (5.01m)
April 9th: 3.10 (4.29m)
April 16th: 3.08 (4.39m)
April 23rd: 3 hour special; 3.06 (4.42m) across the 3 hours; 3.33 (4.76m) across their usual 2 hour time slot

The bit that stands out to me is the last two weeks before Mania were viewing figures actually tailed off, yet the last RAW before Extreme Rules was very strong and a significant pick up on the middle weeks.

I'm tentatively looking forward because this means that Impact will have to be at the top of it's game every single week and longer periods between PPVs should mean that their roster should be better showcased in a meaningful and unrushed manner.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

Good job IWC. You fucking run your mouth all the time... WHY IS THERE PPVS EVERY MONTH.... THERE SHOULD ONLY BE A BIG 4....

Well TNA.. the company that listens to the fans is listening.. and were going to lose less time of actual good wrestling each year if this happens.

I would accept a PPV every other week, because it means AWESOME quality wrestling.. but whatever IWC.. contiune to be completely ******ed and ask for less high quality matches.

You guys do realize they make a killing of PPVs even if only 100,000 buy.... I mean.. whats 100,000 x $50? Well it's more than the WWE pays their entire roster over the course of a year. So the thought that PPVs are bad for business is non logical. Good quality wrestling = good for business. Money = good for business. Wrestling fans = Completely ******ed.

 

[Dagger Dias]

This could be good for TNA. They struggle even more than WWE to make the fans care about their PPV events. The best outcome in my opinion would be if they went down to 6 per year. Two months gives them twice as much time to build up a card before the time comes for the event to go on. Each of the 6 PPV events should then put every title on the line (except the Knockouts Tag Team Championships, which needed to be vacated permanently the moment the current title holders won them) and then a couple of filler matches. That gives 7+ matches for each show.

The 6 shows I would keep and months I would provide them are Genesis in January, Destination X in March, Lockdown in May, Slammiversary in June/July, Bound For Glory in September, and Final Resolution in November. Some shows would see some jumping away from the months they are currently assigned to, but this eliminates some of the less important shows to allow the federation more time to build up interest in the remaining shows. I'd definitely be more likely to purchase them. Now if only they would stop giving away PPV quality matches for free on Impact....