Fewer Pay Per Views

[NSL]

Thanks a fucking lot, Gelgarin...I wanted to reply to this, and you took away everything I could say.

TNA lives and dies by their pay-per-views right now, even if their buyrates are low. They bring in a lot of money all at once, and they put on the big matches that TNA needs to grab new viewers. Cutting down the pay-per-views means that less people will watch the ones that do happen, because they're getting bigger free matches on TV.

 

[G3]

I agree, every other month is a good idea. It will make the shows feel like big shows. I think they would also be able to build up actual story lines for the lower card that the fans would care about instead of what seems to be random matches. I think that by having bi monthly pay per views the buyrates would go up. Maybe as a bonus for bi monthly they could go an extra half hour or whole hour. It would really add more to the atmosphere and get rid of boring time fillers.

 

[Sivsyboi]

With all of the recent unecessary new signings TNA has made (Flair, in particular). TNA can not afford to cut back on Pay Per Views. Should the buy rates not increase, and Hogan's master plan to get every WWE fan watching TNA falls through the floor, then yes; less PPVs would be a good idea. But for now, TNA just can't afford to drop PPVs. I wouldn't be surprised if they added one or two. Dixie may not like the (WWE) Monthly Pay Per View concept, but Hogan probably loves the idea of everyone paying good money to see him "Wrestle" each month.

 

[psykohurricane]

While it would be a good idea to limit the number of PPV per year, TNA cannot afford this right now. The fact is, TNA doesn'T make money and it hasn'T been making money since they started 7 years ago. They can even move out of the IMPACT Zone for their PPV because they don'T have the money. Now Hogan wants to do even less PPV outside the IMPACT Zone because it will save money and they won'T look like a minor League when they are not able to sell out elsewhere.

The problem with this is that they already look like a minor league everytime they use the IMPACT Zone for a PPV. They don'T make money out of the audience or like TNA likes to call them the Castmembers and nobody buys their PPV so they don't make money with that either.

So sure, if i was them i would take a risk and cut on PPV and do maybe 8 out of the 12 PPV and the other 4 events could be free events on Spike Tv but the fact is, Dixie CArter, Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff are trying to fix a broken ship and that can afford to lose any ppv right now even those who are meaningless like the next 2.

 

[XgringolocoX]

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.

I did a thread on this very subject a while back and got shit on for it. Thank you for making this point. Canned. Exactly..

As for the PPV thing. TNA needs them. Period. They're not pulling more money in from anywhere else i'd bet. Well, maybe TV.
WWE is probably able to make changes within their contractual limitations. So for example if they're required to hold one per month, eliminating the 13th shouldn't be an issue. Also as stated they most likely have a little more clout in their business dealings as WWE = BIGMONEY.
TNA will have better buy rates if these PPVs are EVENTS. Larger than life sells and they need to start portraying that image to hook the masses.

 

[onemandynasty08]

I think that TNA should drop their amount of ppvs they have per year. I'm sure we all can agree that 12 ppvs for TNA is a bit much right now. TNA is dishing a lot of money out, but not bringing much in. Whether they get high buyrates or not, they still are paying the cable and satellite companies to air their ppvs and they are more than likely still paying Universal Studios no matter whether they make money or not.

Even though it seems cutting ppvs might decrease money that they generate, but I think it would increase money. I would rather buy a TNA PPV that has had more than 4 weeks of build up than one that is basically thrown together. While Destination X looks good on paper, half of the ppv was thrown together. The casual new TNA fan probably doesn't even recognize half the people on the card, and with TNA being on Mondays two weeks, there is nothing that draws attention for the new people to buy it.

TNA is probably more likely to make money by traveling around and doing house shows, and possibly carrying IMPACT! around eventually. TNA actually has to draw fans into their product before they can increase PPV buyrates. If they had a ppv every other month they could work on building IMPACT! Impact is the thing that is going to draw in new fans, not ppvs. So I say TNA should drop some. I say keep LockDown!, Bound For Glory, Slammiversary, Final Resolution, Against All Odds, maybe Victory Road

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

one ppvevery 2 months is good, it helps build feuds to a better rivalry, like wwe back in thedays, 4 ppv's a month, then it became 5, then they ran IYH shows nearly every month. but see how that grew steadily over the years, tna justdrooped12 ppv's back in 2005 and kept it. okay so they hold most of them in impact zone, but the crowd they attract their, not even true wrestling fans. back to ppv's, the thing is now a days people want to see feud to feud every month to being different, so now we just see at least a 2 month feud, whathas happened to wrestling?

tna should drop some ppv's.