Eric Bischoff: "There should be less PPVs"

[Zeven_Zion]

Source:WrestleZone

TNA Wrestling's Eric Bischoff recently answered a fan question on his official Facebook page which focuses on the amount of annual wrestling pay-per view events.

"Definetly need to drop the number of PPV's," said Bischoff. "The business isn't hot enough to sustain the current number and doing them hurts the long term viability of the category."

Bischoff continued, "Worked in the 90s. Not now. Just my personal opinion. It will take balls and vision to change the model."

Personally, I've been thinking that for maybe half a year now. Pay-Per-Views are no longer selling that well - anywhere. WWE's PPV buysales are dropping every year, we can't speak for TNA's but I bet theirs aren't peachy. In the end, all they do is actually hurt the product by not giving creative enough time to build a storyline. WWE usually books short term, 2-3 week long storylines that end up being meaningless, and a few storylines that span over at least two Pay-Per-Views. There's a fair balance.

TNA on the other hand hasn't booked a short-term storyline for quite some time. The storylines they have currently either go way back to 10.10.10 or a few months back. That's a good thing in my book, even though while it's nice to have a long storyline, TNA doesn't know when to end it, it drags and becomes boring. We don't anticipate the outcome as much as we anticipate the end of the storyline so we'd see something new on our TVs every Thursday.

However, PPVs definitely disrupt the flow of things.

Do you think Bischoff has a point?

Do you think TNA should have bi-monthly Pay-Per-Views?

Do you think the idea of a Wrestling Pay-Per-View is actually obsolete in today's era and TNA or WWE should be looking for something to replace PPVs?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Yep, he's pretty much got a point. The simple truth of it is that ppv events, no matter which company its for, just don't have the type of "must see" quality about them anymore. Each company has a small handful of shows each year that really seem to be focal points, ppvs that really seem to matter. Even though the ppvs can still be entertaning with great matches, they still often have something of a filler feel to them since there are so many over the course of a year.

Besides, not even a month after the ppv happens, you can head to Wal-Mart or K-Mart and buy the show on DVD for a much lower cost that you'd have to pay via ordering the show on ppv. Cable & satellite bills are high enough as it is, plus gas, food & energy prices are on the rise again. So yeah, I can definitely see the side of a lot of people not wanting to spend $40-$50 in addition to an $80+ cable bill each month.

 

[UltimateHitman]

You guys pretty much nailed it.

Dammit, I hate threads like this. Number one, I have to give Zion credit for a good post, and number two, I have to actually admit I agree w/something Eric Bischoff thinks. Thanks, Zion. Sigh.

But they're right. There are too many. It's ridiculous to shell out that kind of money for a ppv, like Jack-Hammer said. The economy's shitty, plus why watch it once for 50 bucks when you can buy it, own it, and watch it as many times as you want for 10-20 bucks?

There would definitely be more "meaningful" storylines and feuds if they had to build them up and sustain them over a longer period of time. And I think, ultimately (no pun intended), it would serve to save the money shelled out in production costs and actually bring in more money by having better quality ppvs. Plus, people would not be so burned out or overwhelmed by them. Heck, you can pretty much find ppvs streamed over the internet anyway, so you're losing out in that sense too.

I think they should lower the number of them and actually lower the cost of the ppvs themselves, too. That would make them more accessible to people and as a result probably bring in more buys and money in the grand scheme of things. If people can afford it, and it feels a little more special, then you're going to garner interest.

 

[Rasha]

Do you think Bischoff has a point?

Absolutely! Many of us have been saying this for about a decade. Monthly PPVs have caused many feuds to be cut short of their full potential because, even though you can extend it through a variety of means, the oversized rosters have made it easier to just kill angles quickly and rotate the next guy in. Gone are the days of a Jericho/Malenko feud over a low-card title that spanned more than one PPV cycle. Monthly PPVs aren't the sole culprit, but they certainly contribute.


Do you think TNA should have bi-monthly Pay-Per-Views?

If they're going to have them at all, then yes. But my next point to the final question says a lot more about this issue. TNA has already shown it's willing to do a PPV-style Impact on occasion, so why not build that into your structure? Every other month have a "special" Impact which essentially amounts to a free PPV for your audience. Maybe even get Spike to give you three hours on a Sunday night to add to the hype.


Do you think the idea of a Wrestling Pay-Per-View is actually obsolete in today's era and TNA or WWE should be looking for something to replace PPVs?

Now we're talking! You really have to answer this question for each company seperately because they're at such different stages right now. For the WWE I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that, if PPVs were obsolete and weren't making them money, they'd have acted on it by now. I'm going to assume that they're still profitable and let them do their thing.

But for TNA, I say they break away from the mold. Take what I said above about the Sunday night special edition of Impact and expand that out into an actual uniquely-named bi-monthly "special" or "supercard." The novelty of what most would perceive as regular "free PPVs" would attract new fans and please your exisiting ones.

That said, this would also allow TNA to truly develop its own Wrestlemania and they could have ONE huge, colossal event as a PPV. Right now none of their PPVs really stand out in significance. I know they try to hype Bound for Glory as their biggest show of the year but the fans haven't bought in. But if they just had the one PPV to start then they could build from that as the climactic night in their company's year.

 

[3/4 Facelock]

I would prefer a few less PPVs yearly. Jack Hammer hit the nail on the head (pun not intended, but it stays). An $80 monthly cable bill is fucking outrageous, yet I pay it willingly and stupidly. Adding a $50 PPV event really fucks up my wallet. Being a fan of wrestling I purchase close to all of the PPVs. The only way I can afford to do such is have a few friends over and split the bill

Buying the DVD after the fact is much cheaper, but I just have to see it live. I would fart with glee if these companies would do something like send you a DVD copy for purchasing a $50 live PPV event.

I doubt they would ever do that and recording it onto my DVR takes up so much space.

Less PPVs mean that maybe the mid-card belts would be given better treatment and fought over between PPVs as the major titles would be the focus of the PPVs like they were when I was a kid in the 80s.

Limiting the amount of PPVs would make for longer feuds and longer title runs, and that would make me a happy fuck, but at the same time I'm sure there are a lot of people who would complain until they turn red about how drawn out and stale and predictable these longer storylines would be.

It's one of those catch-22s. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Davi323]

I agree 100 percent with Bischoff about this, and I am going to do it from a business standpoint. Obviously as consumers we will save money...but from a business standpoint, reducing the number of PPVs (this goes for both the WWE and TNA equally) you make each PPV seem more special. With monthly PPVs, you get rid of one, and immediately build to the next. Even then, you pick and choose. You order one PPV, skip the next because of costs. If you had half of the PPVs, chances are more of us would order then more consistently. Further, Raw, Smackdown and Impact are nothing but filler to get you through to each one. As such, they aren't treated as must see TV. If you reduce the PPVs, you increase the importance of the TV shows. If you see feuds through on TV, more people will watch because you have changed the balance. Viewers can't assume that the REALLY important matches are being saved. Longer time between PPVs means more things happen on TV, means more viewers.

I would even reduce PPVs to four times a year. Make them really special.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I think it depends on the company. If PPV's weren't making money, Vince wouldn't have so many. He'd simply reduce the number. If he felt having that many per year was a burden, he wouldn't.

On the other hand, you have Bischoff. He obviously knows more about the particulars in TNA than we do. If he says TNA shouldn't have so many PPV's, I tend to believe him. He knows how much they cost, compared with how many people are paying for them. If the cost is higher than the profit, then yeah, I see his point.

Basically, I'm saying I don't know. I trust each company to make the right decision, financially. Personally, I don't care. Six, eight, twelve, whatever. If they cut PPV's in half, it wouldn't bother me one bit. It would allow each company to build better storylines, and fans might not be so spoiled.

 

[justinsayne]

Yeah, I gotta agree with Bischoff on this one, especially in TNA, where PPV's have really been shit lately (along with everything else), more often than not PPV's just feel like 3 hrs. episodes in Impact, I really can't think of any major moment that's come from a PPV in TNA since BFG, and half the time I don't even know when the PPV's are or what the matches on them are gonna be until someone on here throws up a LD for it, TNA could very well be better off cutting back on teh amount of PPVs, drop it back to say 8 a year for now, and then work on booking and building up storylines toward the PPVs, so that we have a reason to want to watch the damn thing, this is just one of the many things TNA needs to work on to become a respectable promotion once again

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

He does have a point and I agree that there are too many PPVs. However, WWE saves all their big matches for their PPVs as everything builds towards them. WWE also has their best wrestling on the PPVs and it's really the only time they let the wrestlers open up outside of their normal moveset. However to cut it down to 10ish PPVs a year would provide a better buildup and they might open up more on a weekly basis so I think it would be great for them.

For TNA, their PPV's aren't that much different than what you get on free TV. However, it is the only live show they put on so I think it's better that they have more PPV's.

I think that PPV's are great for both companies but the focus should be on what they have on free TV to hook viewers so they actually buy the PPVs. I could be wrong about this from a business sense as there is big money in PPV's but as a viewer, I think the weekly shows is what make the PPV's worth ordering in the first place so that should be the primary focus of both companies.

 

[Azane]

WWE PPVs have been less "must see" than random RAWs in the late 90's.
the cards are full of terrible matches being rushed in order to display most the titles.
the gimmick PPVs have watered them down to being a chore, You don't get the skin on the back of your neck standing up when you hear "hell in a cell" because you knew months ago the PPV was called Hell in a Cell.
wasn't there 3 PPVs in a month period last year around Bragging rights? That was such terrible quality in favor of quanity that it made the product nearly unwatchable that month. The reason Wrestlemania is such a big deal, is they can invest 3 months of build into it. from a buisness standpoint, 4 WMs would beat 10 lowcards, and WM/Summerslam.
I haven't had it in me to order a PPV in a while outside Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania, and its because of the drop of quality put in for quanity.

the TNA cards haven't been very spectacular either, mostly because Drug Dealers main eventing is appalling.

 

[shattered dreams]

Bischoff is right but he only answers the easy part of the question. The part that requires balls and a vision is the tricky part. That is how do you replace that revenue stream? I am sure he has ideas but short-term you have to think changing the model is going to cost money. The reason it takes balls is that you have to be confident that in the long run your plan can make the short-term losses worth it. While I personally agree with him I do not have enough confidence in any idea that I have heard to think it is worth the risk. It is catch 22 though because the more a company waits, the more what Bischoff describes as the "longer term viability" becomes a bigger issue.

 

[legendkiller1979]

It's kinda ironic that Bischoff is the one making this point because it's his fault we can one ppv a month. In his effort to outdo Vince Mcmahon, he kept raising the bar...and here we are. Of course he is right. Remember 20 years ago when there were four ppv's a year? That's when wrestling was truly special. There was time to develop feuds and they didn't have to come up with new storylines and feuds each month. I loved the reports that Mean Gene used to do. By the time the ppv rolled around people were so excited they could hardly wait. There was time to build the hype. That just can't happen today. Today are glorified episodes of Raw or Impact and that's a real shame.

 

[Calderownz]

Do you think Bischoff has a point?

Do you think TNA should have bi-monthly Pay-Per-Views?

Do you think the idea of a Wrestling Pay-Per-View is actually obsolete in today's era and TNA or WWE should be looking for something to replace PPVs?

1. Yes. With the economy and the state of the industry, it's hard to assume anything else. 8 to 9 PPVs a year would make more sense. I think that 6 or 7 would end up helping the sales. More money to spend on particular PPVs, more PPVs sold.

2. That would make the most sense, in some ways. With the exception of a huge PPV somewhere in the year. Randomly, even. To make it seem like issues need to be settled.

3. Possibly. However, it's unlikely that PPV will be going away. Still too much money in it and there isn't a reasonable replacement at this point. PPVs can be sold, wrestling folk simply needs to give fans what they want.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Well I think Bischoff is absolutely right. At one time it made sense to hold a PPV every month because they were built enough to the point you wanted to buy it , these days there are very few PPV's that are "Must See".

I don't necessarily think the problem is with they can't but they just aren't built enough. People aren't going to buy PPV's for the sake of buying PPV's, that shit is expensive, they are only going to buy PPV's they want to see. The only way to do that is to build stars, feuds and storylines that warrant spending 40-50 bones every month. At this point in time I don't think it can happen so they should drop the number quite a bit. Personally I would love to see both companies go back to 4 a year, it would give them plenty of time to build PPV's and would drastically increase the buys all around, its kind of hard shelling out 40-50 bones to watch the same match you have seen before (Cena and Orton main evented 4 consecutive PPV's, why would someone pay 200 to see all those matches?).

I would like to see PPV's less than bi-monthly, like I said I feel 4 is a good number to go with, just like back in the day.

I certainly don't think PPV's are obsolete in the world of wrestling, both companies just need to work harder to make the PPV's must see, both sides have the talent to do it so they really don't have any excuses for the crummy PPV buys. I would start off with less than maybe gradually work my way up to a point where I can have a PPV every month and keep stong buys throughout.

NOTE: This opinion comes solely from a wrestling fan, if I was running a business I would definitely run 12 because they make more money overall. PPV's often give packed houses (either company) and a shitty PPV with miniscule buys still makes more than an episode of RAW with a 6.0 rating.

 

[thegreekhero]

It wouldnt work in TNA, but it'll be a good return in the WWE:

The 'E' should bring back the alternating ppv's. One month for RAW, the other for SmackDown. That way, while SmackDown's storylines are coming to their ppv worthy matches so to speak, RAW can have time to build up their storylines, and vice versa. I thought it was really enjoyable to watch WWE like that, because when a RAW ppv was coming up, you would pay more attention to RAW, and when a SmackDown ppv was coming up, you would pay more attention to SmackDown.

It wouldn't work in TNA, because its only one show, but maybe they can have a ppv every other month also.

 

[xGotTheEdgex]

Great thread. Was going to start one similar to this when I read Bischoff's comments, but never got around to it. Now, I really do think Bischoff is spot on. Even though WWE's buy-rates are down, they still seem to be doing fine, and we don't know exactly how many PPV buys TNA gets and how well their PPVs do. However, BOTH WWE and TNA's products would benefit in reducing their number of PPVs per year.

For TNA, I would like to see them reduce their number down to 4 each year (Bound For Glory, Lockdown, Slammiversary, and maybe one like Destination X), with maybe a free Super-Show or two each year as well. In my opinion, TNA's product would benefit from this greatly. We would get proper feuds and stories that last longer then just one month. I know currently in TNA, the whole Immortal/Fourtune/Everyone else story has been going on since before 10/10/10...but still.

But lets look at Victory Road really quick. Victory Road is in exactly one week. TNA hasn't confirmed a single match for that PPV yet. Now, all of us who have been watching TNA weekly can pretty much assume what matches we will see, but the fact remains that TNA hasn't confirmed a single match for Victory Road and it's one week away. Victory Road hasn't been properly built up/advertised. I know they were concentrating all their efforts on this past weeks Impact, but this is a situation where less PPVs would benefit TNA.

 

[Sedated]

Do you think Bischoff has a point?

Yeah, he certainly has a point. His point is nothing that hasn't been being brought up by various people in the IWC for years though. Never the less, here's the thing: Whether or not this model proves to be a good one still depends on creative. Less PPVs with bad creative just means story lines drag out even more and will bore you. TNA already has a combination of drawn out boring story's and hot shotted angles, at least that's how it is every time I try to watch it. TNA needs to work on writing quality angles before they worry about something like this. At this point in time with how TNA is; all I picture it doing is making them even less relevant.

Also it's been so long since wrestling was in this format who's to say how we would react even if this was done decently. We all love the occasional angle that lasts a long time but if everything was like that? It might just not feel right at this point. It's easier to look back and remember things very fondly, then you may find if things go back that way it's not as great as you hoped/remembered. Besides, even with the current format we get story lines we feel dragged out too long.

Do you think TNA should have bi-monthly Pay-Per-Views?

No. Not at this time. They have a lot more important things to worry about like writing one weeks worth of interesting storys, none the less two months worth. They also need to stop recording 3 impact tapings in one day, there's no way this can improve the quality of a show when some wrestlers can only wrestle once in a day and others are wrestling three matches.

Do you think the idea of a Wrestling Pay-Per-View is actually obsolete in today's era and TNA or WWE should be looking for something to replace PPVs?

What's going to replace the PPV? Put it on cable TV? Then it's just like watching Raw, complete with commercials and all that crap. What a company like WWE should be looking into is lowering production costs so they can lower the PPV prices and in turn get higher buy rates. I think people get fed up with the cost of PPV's more so than they do the number (generally speaking)

 

[Lucha-Libre is wrestling]

Okay guys it comes down to one word why WWE wont do less PPV's its call SPONSORS, yes the buy rates on wwe ppvs have gone down but they ain't losing much money. Every WWE PPV has a Sponsor and a musical Sponsor also and they pay good money to wwe to advertise on Raw & SD every week leading into the PPV. Now TNA is another story they don't get many Sponsors for impact or PPVS, so less PPV'S may help them. I always wonder why TNA doesn't try to get sponsors to hang banners inside the impactzone like AAA and CMLL does. TNA struggles at times because of poor business management. Anyone that knows anything about sports management ( Pro or College level ) knows that the real money comes from Sponsorship not PPV's or tickets sales.

 

[razor_2910]

The WWE back in the day use to have only 5 PPVs a year They would have only Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King of the Ring, Summerslam and Survivor Series.

What TNA PPVs do you think they should keep if they reduce it to just five a year? The obvious ones to keep would be Lockdown, Slammiversary and Bound for Glory. What other 2 would you keep?

 

[King Patrick Star]

I do think Eric has a point. I myself have not purchased a TNA PPV. As a matter of fact, the only Sports Entertainment PPV I purchase is WrestleMania.

I do think TNA should cut it back to bi-monthly PPVs. The PPVs I would keep and when the should have them are:
February Victory Road (1st TNA PPV)
April Lockdown (TNA’s Survivor Series)
June Slammiversary (TNA’s SummerSlam)
August Destination X (X-Division PPV)
October Bound for Glory (TNA’s Flagship PPV)
December Final Resolution (TNA’s Royal Rumble…sort of)

I do think the idea of a Wrestling Pay-Per-View is actually obsolete in today's era and TNA or WWE should be looking for something to replace PPVs, but I have no idea what to replace them with. I think instead of replacing them, maybe they could just cut the price down in half or something along those lines. Also, Sunday isn’t the best day to have a PPV. In WWE’s case, the kids have school the next day. In TNA’s case, the adults have work the next day. If you’re not in school and you’re not at work on Monday morning, chances are, you are not paying for the PPV anyway.

 

[GrandSword]

The WWE back in the day use to have only 5 PPVs a year They would have only Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, King of the Ring, Summerslam and Survivor Series.

What TNA PPVs do you think they should keep if they reduce it to just five a year? The obvious ones to keep would be Lockdown, Slammiversary and Bound for Glory. What other 2 would you keep?

I'd keep Gensis, as it is the first ppv of the year and is a good break from Bound for Glory. Apart from that I don't think it needs a fifth. 4 a year for TNA would be fine.

 

[Th3Vip3rRK0]

I would like to see the return of a brand only PPV's from the WWE.

Since there are 13 PPV's in WWE's calendar, I would have Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, Night of Champions, SummerSlam and Survivor Series as the joint PPV's (RAW & SD) and have 4 PPV's for RAW and 4 PPV's for SMACKDOWN and thats equals to 13 PPV's.

I would drop the gimmick PPV's and bring back No Way Out, Backlash, Judgment Day, Vengeance, Unforgiven, No Mercy and Armageddon and maybe keep Over the Limit.

RAW would get Backlash, Vengeance, Unforgiven and Armageddon
SD would get No Way Out, Judgment Day, No Mercy and Over the Limit.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Couldn't agree more.

The business hasn't been capable of supporting that many PPV's a year for years now, probably dating back even to the tail end of WCW's dying years. The "boom" just isn't there to support it like it was prior for a few very solid years during the "Golden Age".

Frankly, I'd love to see TNA be the trend-setter here by cutting back to eight, six or even four a year.

Even as a loyal TNA supporter, even I can't justify spending that money every month, and I often don't despite actually wanting to see the show. I just can't afford to add to my already expensive enough as it is cable bill just to watching another night of wrestling.

 

[BillAlfonso]

Yes, I've been saying this for a while and I even started a thread once upon a time. I think they should cut it down to one PPV a quarter and a "Clash of The Champions" type special event on the off months. Then maybe a "grand event" of some type. Here's the model I envision:

Grand Event = G.E.
Special Event = S.E.

Jan-PPV
Feb-S.E.
March-S.E.
Apr-PPV
May-S.E.
Jun-S.E.
July-PPV
Aug-S.E.
Sept-S.E.
Oct-PPV
Nov-S.E.
Dec-G.E.

This model will work because it gives enough time to build feuds leading to a bigger payoff and, since there are fewer PPVs, there will be less title changes bringing more prestige to them. If TNA does this, the loss of PPV buys will be offset by the ratings and ad revenue from the Specials and there will be greater exposure because it's more opportunity to see them and they can pump more money into the PPVs.

 

[Lucha-Libre is wrestling]

Yes, I've been saying this for a while and I even started a thread once upon a time. I think they should cut it down to one PPV a quarter and a "Clash of The Champions" type special event on the off months. Then maybe a "grand event" of some type. Here's the model I envision:

Grand Event = G.E.
Special Event = S.E.

Jan-PPV
Feb-S.E.
March-S.E.
Apr-PPV
May-S.E.
Jun-S.E.
July-PPV
Aug-S.E.
Sept-S.E.
Oct-PPV
Nov-S.E.
Dec-G.E.

This model will work because it gives enough time to build feuds leading to a bigger payoff and, since there are fewer PPVs, there will be less title changes bringing more prestige to them. If TNA does this, the loss of PPV buys will be offset by the ratings and ad revenue from the Specials and there will be greater exposure because it's more opportunity to see them and they can pump more money into the PPVs.

I'm sorry but without Sponsorship and Advertisement spots like WWE and major sports do I don't see your idea or any PPV idea working for TNA. I think Bischoff knows that deep down inside. The guy has been around for a long time he worked for AWA, WCW, WWE , he knows that the real money in sports and entertainments comes from Sponsorship and advertisement not ticket sales and ppv's. I think he just doesn't care about TNA and just going to milk it till it dies or till he can buy them for cheap.