Fewer Pay Per Views

[johnbragg]

A while back, Dixie Carter was quoted as saying that she's not crazy about the monthly pay per view schedule or something to that effect.

A day or two ago, news broke that WWE told cable companies that they were cutting a June PPV.

If WWE can just cut a PPV with six months notice, couldn't TNA do the same? I have to think that the TNA PPVs aren't making anyone much money--including the cable companies.

Any thoughts? Is there relevant information I'm missing?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I was never much of a fan of 12 PPV's a year. I'm more than happy with 6 – one every two months.

It'd certainly help the company save money, especially if the buy rates aren't coming through.

 

[TellMeWhy]

TNA has a PPV deal with PPV providers that provide their PPVs. They can't just wake up tomorrow and opt out of a monthly PPV deal agreement. They have an obligation to fulfill and so far that obligation is to provide a PPV every month. Until that deal is over, they have no choice but to wait for that contract to end before they can rework a new PPV deal agreement that may not have to deal with doing a PPV each month.

 

[Splinter48708]

With Vince cutting back on the PPVs, there's a couple of good reasons behind it that I can see.

The first is storyline development. This will give Stephanie and the rest of storyline development a chance to really build up to a given PPV instead of rushing a storyline/feud in the three weeks between major shows. Like with the WM hype that tends to build over a couple of months (as it's the BIG draw), Vince, Stephanie and the others can focus on the other PPVs better. The storylines seem more rushed, even if a feud spreads over several PPVs.

Next, it helps the talent by letting them recover a little more. Even though 98% of the moves are worked, there's still that slim chance that a move could be botched and a legit injury can happen that sidelines someone (like Sid Vicious very nasty leg snapping or HHH accidentally hitting HBK with enough force to rattle HBK for real). The talent could use the extra downtime between PPVs. Actually, if they were to cut down a little more (I know...not gonna happen) to 10 per year, the quality would be better.

 

[johnbragg]

TNA has a PPV deal with PPV providers that provide their PPVs. They can't just wake up tomorrow and opt out of a monthly PPV deal agreement.

That's what we've all been assuming. And yet WWE can do so.

They have an obligation to fulfill and so far that obligation is to provide a PPV every month. Until that deal is over, they have no choice but to wait for that contract to end before they can rework a new PPV deal agreement that may not have to deal with doing a PPV each month.

If WWE's deal was up, and they made the change then, that would fit what we thought we knew. Or maybe there is a 12-month notice requirement.

But do you see my point that WWE can up and cancel one of the 2 June PPVs in a memo to the cable companies? That's, (pause to count fingers) 7 months from now.

My point is that TNA's hands may be less tied than they imply.

 

[Slyfox696]

The problem with cutting back on PPVs is all the money you lose. PPVs are where the REAL money comes from, assuming the shows you put on can draw at all. You get the gate attendance (which is higher than regular shows, and draws better), you get better merchandise sales, better concession sales (if you're making money from that), all advertisement money on the PPV comes directly to you, and of course, you can sell your show to thousands of people at home paying good money for the show.

For a company like TNA, they need to be making sure they are operating at peak profit levels in everything they do. If PPVs are making them money, they need to have as many as they can that they believe will make them money.

 

[johnbragg]

PPVs are where the REAL money comes from, assuming the shows you put on can draw at all.

With TNA, that's a question. I've been reading Randy 's blog at nawf.com (North American Wrestling Federation)--he used to be head of production for TNA before he got fired.

We know that TNA has a hard time getting crowds to fill arenas larger than the Impact Zone. When they go anywhere else, they have to pay to rent the building, pay to get the crew and the equipment and production stuff to the city, pay the wrestler's hotel bills, pay for local advertising (at least they should), all kinds of expenses. If they have 5000 people in an NBA arena, chances are they're losing money on the live gate.

As for the PPV money, he says that the promotion gets about 40% of the revenue from the PPV. He also said that TNA has to get 25,000 buys to break even on a PPV, which TNA does about half the time. (I don't know if "break even" covers the costs of going on the road, or if the cable companies get paid a guarantee first.)

What I was really asking, though, is does anyone have any information as to why TNA claims that changing the PPV schedule is a big undertaking, while WWE can do it with a memo?

 

[Slyfox696]

With TNA, that's a question. I've been reading Randy 's blog at nawf.com (North American Wrestling Federation)--he used to be head of production for TNA before he got fired.

It may be a question, but it's only a question since no one really knows how much they draw.

We know that TNA has a hard time getting crowds to fill arenas larger than the Impact Zone.

I don't know that at all. I went to Lockdown 2007, and they had quite a few fans there.

When they go anywhere else, they have to pay to rent the building

They do that anyways.

pay to get the crew and the equipment and production stuff to the city

Maybe the equipment, but probably not the crew.

pay the wrestler's hotel bills

Not likely.

pay for local advertising (at least they should)

Probably no more than they do for the House Show circuit.

all kinds of expenses.

Probably not any more than an Impact taping.

If they have 5000 people in an NBA arena, chances are they're losing money on the live gate.

They usually don't rent NBA arenas though.

As for the PPV money, he says that the promotion gets about 40% of the revenue from the PPV.

As profit or gross?

He also said that TNA has to get 25,000 buys to break even on a PPV, which TNA does about half the time. (I don't know if "break even" covers the costs of going on the road, or if the cable companies get paid a guarantee first.)

If you can get 25,100 then it's worth it. Assuming he's accurate.

What I was really asking, though, is does anyone have any information as to why TNA claims that changing the PPV schedule is a big undertaking, while WWE can do it with a memo?

WWE has a lot more money and wields a lot more power.

 

[johnbragg]

We know that TNA has a hard time getting crowds to fill arenas larger than the Impact Zone.

I don't know that at all. I went to Lockdown 2007, and they had quite a few fans there.

Was the building full? Half-full? Wikipedia gives attendance as 6000, and the arena has a capacity for 9000-10000 for football/basketball/hockey. So that was a pretty good gate.

When they go anywhere else, they have to pay to rent the building

Not when they're in the Impact Zone. OK, they do rent the Impact Zone, but it's cheaper and they pay whether they use it or not.

all kinds of expenses./ Probably not any more than an Impact taping.

And how many of those do they do outside the Impact Zone?

As for the PPV money, he says that the promotion
gets about 40% of the revenue from the PPV.
As profit or gross?

Gross. The rest goes to the distributors and cable companies.

Quote:
What I was really asking, though, is does anyone have any information as to why TNA claims that changing the PPV schedule is a big undertaking, while WWE can do it with a memo?
WWE has a lot more money and wields a lot more power.

They're also a fatter target for a lawsuit if they break a contract, though. Dixie Carter implied (or we all overinterpreted) that reducing the PPV schedule would be a complicated undertaking. WWE just did it without a lot of internet news about negotiations with different providers. Now, maybe it is just that WWE can dictate to providers and TNA can't. Maybe WWE knows that no one is going to drop WWE PPV because there are 10 or 13 or 14 events, while TNA provides the distributors with a lot less revenue.

Or maybe we over-interpreted what Dixie Carter said off the cuff about reducing PPVs.

Or maybe a corporate executive gave us a snowjob.

I'm not mad. I'm just curious/interested.

 

[Ubiquitous]

Time to present all the facts instead of just some. When wwe decided to drop the June ppv they also decided to add $5 onto the price of every other ppv. Now would you rather have 45 dollars all at once, or an extra 50+ over the course of the year? It probably wasn't even an issue, as its extra money for everyone involved, as well as it not being one of the big four that bring in the most. Tna really can't pull a power move like that and expect ppv providers to agree. They're not bringing in the audience that wwe is.

 

[johnbragg]

When wwe decided to drop the June ppv they also decided to add $5 onto the price of every other ppv. Now would you rather have 45 dollars all at once, or an extra 50+ over the course of the year?

I wasn't trying to deny that, I just wasn't thinking of it as relevant. From the cable companies standpoint, that's only true if buyrates hold constant. So if the cable companies have a contractual right to 13 WWE PPV a year, then 12 PPV at a higher price is something that WWE would have to negotiate.

The news reports really didn't seem to be about "WWE Reaches Agreement on New PPV Schedule" it was "WWE Notifies Cable Providers about New PPV Schedule."

Maybe the WWE contract is more flexible than the TNA contract, because WWE is a huge player in PPV and TNA isn't. Maybe if TNA tried to go to 6 or 8 PPVs a year, say, providers would drop them entirely. I don't know. (ROH and DGUSA don't run once a month, and boxing promotions run sporadically. Then again, they also have an uphill battle negotiating coverage.)

 

[Jack-Hammer]

TNA has contracts with various cable & satellite providers that they can't just up and break. Carter said as much herself but, as I recall, she did give a strong hint that TNA's ppv format would change once those contracts were up.

From what I understand, I might be wrong on this but I'm pretty sure I remember reading it, Carter does like the idea of having only 6 ppvs a year. She definitely isn't a fan of the monthly format, that much is certain. As for when those contracts expire, I've got no clue. It could very well be years off yet before that happens and things could very well change by then.

The WWE has, thus far, dropped one ppv from their upcoming schedule. I don't know if anybody has all the facts but it's possible that the cable and satellite companies allowed the WWE to do this. It's also possible that the WWE just decided to do it themselves and I doubt those companies will have many complaints because WWE ppvs bring in pretty big revenue. As for TNA, I don't believe TNA has what it takes at this time to pull a similar move on their own as they don't generate the revenue that the WWE does.

 

[johnbragg]

TNA has contracts with various cable & satellite providers that they can't just up and break.

And WWE doesn't? That's what raises red flags for me.

Maybe the internet news had it wrong, and WWE quietly negotiated this stuff with the providers. Or maybe the providers have a right, theoretically, to cancel all WWE programming over this.

Or maybe TNA has more flexibility than we think.

 

[WunNightStan619]

Yeah the storylines are wayyyyy to rushed and it seems like they are always playing catch-up. They are always tryna prepare for the next ppv instead of telling a story between 2 wrestlers. Back in the 90's and early 2000's 12 ppv's worked cuz they had twice as much time to prepare cuz the shows weren't split up. they had raw and smackdown. but now that the shows are spilt, it would be a good idea to cut the ppvs down to 6 a year, wun every 2months..that way they have a better build up to the matches

 

[Randolph H]

I think both TNA and WWE should have a ppv every 6 weeks. It would give them time to build up to a big event but not over extend the time between the big events. I have always thought that 2 months between ppv's was too long and every month was too soon with the story line and my wallet.

 

[NSL]

I was never much of a fan of 12 PPV's a year. I'm more than happy with 6 – one every two months.

It'd certainly help the company save money, especially if the buy rates aren't coming through.

I like this idea. Earlier this year, WWE gave us 7 weeks between NWO and WrestleMania. It gave us more than enough build for the show, and set up a full exciting card (minus the Dival Bowl, but whatever).

TNA has a loaded roster, and could really give us something worth looking forward to every other month, better than every month. I like the PPVs, but I'm also a bigger mark than your average fan.

 

[Ubiquitous]

I agree with the time WWE gave us between NWO and Wrestlemania leading us into a great Wrestlemania this year. I'm not sure if 6 is the way too go, but I think there should maybe be one per month, except for the big four. For the big four, I believe we should be given proper build time, 5-7 weeks. Two months for mania, with NWO/EC being at the start of February and WM being at the start of April. I think it'd be perfect, that would give us 8-10 PPV's a year (don't bash me, I didn't do the exact math, haha). It would also mean the lesser PPV's mean a little more as well. It would be nice if we got some of the original PPV names back too, but that's wishing too much. I already miss No Way Out and we haven't even lost it yet (technically). Unforgiven, No Mercy, Bad Blood... hell, once upon a time some of these pay per views had video games named after them! Now, no respect. They have so many pay per views nowadays they figure they can do just about anything and get away with it (hiac, tlc, ec). It's silly, but I just figure this system could do wonders, for both companies.

Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter whether WWE told their pay per view providers they weren't holding a june pay per view, or if their lawyers sat in a room with the pay per view providers' lawyers in an empty room at a square table with a single light for 140 hours straight to work out this phenomenal deal. The thing is, it was done, however they did it. If Dixie Carter wanted fewer pay per views, and it was an easy thing to accomplish, I'm sure she'd just do it. There's no reason she wouldn't if all it required was an e-mail to the people that ran their ppv's. I'm sure if she really wants it to happen, and there's a way, she'll make it happen when the time is right. WWE is making a step in the right direction and TNA will follow suit if it's what's right for their company.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think there should be fewer PPV's. One a month is too many, especially when most of them feel like they are the exact same show with different wrestlers facing each other, and a different name. There are only about 5 PPV's in TNA that I can tell apart, the rest may have different names but take out the name and they all turn into "Random Monthly PPV in TNA - 7" and so forth. At least with Bound For Glory, Slammiversary, Lockdown, and to a lesser extent Destination X, maybe even Genesis.... you can tell it is a different show. All the rest are FAR too similar to each other. I'm not saying make them all themed, or to cut all but 6 of them.... but they could at least do something to set the lesser shows apart from one another. This would help TNA more than cutting any of their shows because PPV's can be such a large source of money for any wrestling federation.

 

[EStreet]

What if TNA moved away from the monthly PPV idea...I understand that this is a company that started with PPV only but they currently suffer big time in buy rates, and with the new regime coming in I think this is a huge change that could work and not only build the company but recreate Wrestling.

1. suffer from poor buy rates so why not do away with monthly PPVs and limit them to maybe 5-6 major events on PPV a year that can attract

2. build storylines..with the 4 impact-ppv model we are getting storylines that are rushed, matches made in a quick fashion..instead allow these stories to build over months and have big matches set up, not just filler

3. WWE has completely turned their PPVs into gimmicks..TNA cannot follow suit and must make their PPVs mean something and be serious events (as the UFC events are looked at as major fights)

4. opportunity to tape Impacts and possibly go head to head with RAW once a month...not going to steal fans from RAW right away..but attract them while they are watching RAW Jan. 4th then go back to thursday nights, when they can tune in because there is no WWE programming, and every month challenge RAW on one night..it can serve as a "SPECIAL IMPACT" as well as serve as a measuring stick to WWE in the first year

 

[Gelgarin]

And during all of the time that they are no running PPVs they make money how?

You don't seriously think that halving the number of PPVs is going to double the buy rate? The WWE added three extra shows 2004, and buy rates remained constant whilst revenue jumped by $30,000,000. There is a reason why wrestling promotions run monthly PPVs, and that's because that is the most efficient way to make money.

TNA don't release their financials, but judging what I can off of their expenditure, house show frequency/attendance and how long those Sting baseball bats have been for sale on TNA.com, I'd estimate that PPV buys are TNA's most significant source of consistant income.

If you cut half of the shows out of existence you are forced to either dramatically downscale the cost of the company, or find some alternate stream of revenue... and I can't think what that could be.

House shows don't pull great gates as it is, and if TNA intensify the schedule it's going to make the company a far less attractive environment to work in, prompting fewer big names to want to work there, and more undercard guys to look for WWE developmental deals which pay just as well, require less travel, and offer the potential of a much better contract.

The only way to improve income from sources like sponsorship or merchandise is to get more people watching the product, and there's no easy way of doing that. Reducing the number of PPVs certainly wont assist matters, since if feuds are given twice as long to simmer, if gives people less incentive to tune in every week to keep up. Alot of people don't like it, but one of the attractions of TNA is that it is non-stop action (especially compared to the snail pace of WWE), and spending twice the time building every pay of show somewhat undermines that.

Lastly... TNA is doing fine building shows as it is. They're two shows into this month, and they gave one of them over to an irrelevant tournament that accomplished very little towards building feuds. They've still managed to successfully build AJ/Daniels and Angle/Wolfe for the PPV, which will be the matched that sell the show. Extra TV might help, but it's far from a necessity, and certainly not worth jeopardizing your company's major source of revenue over.

 

[Storm4life]

TNA needs to stop doing the majority of their PPVs at the Impact Zone. The PPVs held there are just a 3 hour version of Impact that they're charging extra to see. Now obviously TNA can't fill Madison Square Garden (just an example, no WWE reference intended) but there are other venues that they can fill. Every PPV done outside of Orlando has a bigger feel to it. It's more dramatic and exciting and it makes you want to pay the extra $$$ each month to see it. And since you have to pay to see it in person, as opposed to getting in free in Orlando, that's more revenue. Just my opinion.....

 

[Dagger Dias]

What if TNA moved away from the monthly PPV idea...I understand that this is a company that started with PPV only but they currently suffer big time in buy rates, and with the new regime coming in I think this is a huge change that could work and not only build the company but recreate Wrestling.

I disagree. TNA needs PPV's. They are one of the best ways for any wrestling federation to make money.

1. suffer from poor buy rates so why not do away with monthly PPVs and limit them to maybe 5-6 major events on PPV a year that can attract

Or they could try to advertise them more. I rarely ever see commercials for them on channels other than Spike.... It would also help if they tried to make the "less important" TNA PPV's (in other words.... all but Bound For Glory, Lockdown, and Slammiversary) more easy to tell each other apart. Destination X usually has an Ultimate X match, so that one is covered. Nearly all of the "less important" ones sound identical though. Even if they cut it down to 6 then there would still be 3 or so that sound identical to each other while the bigger ones would still draw the same they do now.

2. build storylines..with the 4 impact-ppv model we are getting storylines that are rushed, matches made in a quick fashion..instead allow these stories to build over months and have big matches set up, not just filler

They do build storylines, they just really complicated really quickly. I do agree that the 4 impact-PPV model is hurting them. If they intend to keep going in that format then they could just keep feuds going to multiple PPV's. That is better than cutting any of the PPV's from the schedule.

3. WWE has completely turned their PPVs into gimmicks..TNA cannot follow suit and must make their PPVs mean something and be serious events (as the UFC events are looked at as major fights)

They can do that if they try to make the "less important" ones different from each other in even just one little detail. I'm sure they can figure something out, but knowing TNA they might mess up on that somehow.

4. opportunity to tape Impacts and possibly go head to head with RAW once a month...not going to steal fans from RAW right away..but attract them while they are watching RAW Jan. 4th then go back to thursday nights, when they can tune in because there is no WWE programming, and every month challenge RAW on one night..it can serve as a "SPECIAL IMPACT" as well as serve as a measuring stick to WWE in the first year

Yeah I guess that could work.... but they still shouldn't cut any PPV's right now. I agree that there are too many, but it is arguably the best way TNA can get money right now other than merchandise. They are almost always at the Impact Zone, so they won't get much in terms of the price for attending a show. It has been suggested many times that they have Impact Tapings and PPV's at other places more often, that would generate more money because of people wanting to attend the show who now can because it's not at the Impact Zone.

Cutting any PPV's would not do TNA much good right now even though there are too many PPV's because it is better for them financially to keep all of the PPV's for a while longer.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

TNA needs ppvs. PPVs are a source of high revenue and have been for a long time. Even back in the infancy days of ppv, guys like Jim Crockett, Jr. and Vince McMahon knew that pay-per-view format was a potential gold mine and they were right. It might seem like a revolutionary idea for TNA to cut back on the number of ppvs they have a year, but it doesn't really make smart business sense. From what I understand, TNA's ppv buys aren't exactly through the roof. While TNA doesn't officially release their buyrates, stuff leaks out over the net and, if TNA ppvs did do anywhere near buys the WWE did, I have a feeling they'd let everyone know about it. Bottom line is, TNA needs all the revenue it can get and I doubt that ppv buys are going to increase for TNA if they simply stop having as many events. What would most likely happen is that TNA would wind up losing money rather than making it.

TNA needs to have more ppvs held in venues aside from the Impact Zone. I know it's more expensive to do so, but these are the sort of calculated risks that TNA is going to have to take. TNA is also going to have to start doing more live shows both in and away from the Impact Zone if they want to shed the image of having a somewhat generic looking, canned wrestling show.

 

[DexVendetta88]

TNA must keep their PPVs because out of all honesty this is pretty much the only way they're really making any money at all since they don't even charge an entrance fee to the ImpactZone. The problem with TNA is that they want to keep the "territorial" feel to the company thus having a majority of their shows in the ImpactZone. This can most likely be their downfall because they're at the point now that they want to be on equal footing with the WWE, but they want to hold onto the old-fashioned territorial style which they started off with when they were known as NWA/TNA. All I can say is if they want to be on equal footing with the WWE they should really take a page from WCW where they have their major show (Imapct) on the road, and some sort of weekend show that takes place at the Impactzone (kinda like the old WCW Saturday Night show). If they do this, they can compete with the WWE while keeping their territorial roots intact.The PPVs on the other hand, well just remember TNA got the attention they needed because of their weekly PPV shows when they started. This was considered a gamble at the time because 1. They needed a steady buyrate each week to survive, 2. The quality of their weekly PPVs had to above average; give the viewers their money's worth, and 3. They were a fairly new company with very little production value. So if you think they have a lot of PPVs now, just think back to when they started and how they charged roughly $10 each week for their weekly PPV show.

 

[Supersayin]

I Have always said the biggest problem TNA has from growing is the Impact zone. I guarantee they can do higer ratings than raw in the next 1-2 years if they tour outside other than always in that ameturish looking sound stage. It puts people off and it is definitly putting me off now aswell.

But back to the question, TNA should keep their 12 monthly PPV's but do it them outside Impact zone like they did in 2008. I have never seen a company pull out the stops for a PPV all year long, it was amazing. I bought all their PPV's in 2008. The X division matches were all 5 star, Joe was champ and AJ was feuding with Angle and Beer Money was born. Fast forward 2009, TNA put some Shit PPV's on for us that even it made Fucking WWE PPV's look good. The only good TNA PPV's this year were Bound for glory (PPV of the year), Slammiversary and Turning point.

That is 3 good PPV's from a company that considers itself to be Total Non-stop Action.