No More Pay-Per-Views?

[Jack-Hammer]

According to the WON, there's some speculation going on that TNA might not be doing any ppv events in 2015. This speculation is fueled primarily because, according to the report, TNA's Lockdown ppv will be airing for free on TV this year.

Lockdown and Bound for Glory are seen as TNA's two biggest shows, so while the Lockdown ppv is the only one specifically mentioned, it's an indicator that MAYBE TNA's strategy to rebuild in 2015 won't be including pay-per-view events. After all, it's unusual to show your 2nd biggest show of the year on television for free and TNA has already turned most of their yearly ppv events into TV specials anyhow.

 

[klunderbunker]

Why would they keep going with them?

The shows cost a good deal of money to put on PPV, the reports suggest that almost no one bought them, and they blew Bound For GLory up this year with one of the worst shows of the year with no effort and a big middle finger to the fans that bought it. There's no reason to keep the shows on PPV at this point and TNA needs to make sacrifices like this to stay in the position they have now. Throwing money down a hole to say you have pay per view is a horrible idea, especially now that they don't have Spike money backing them up. If you sacrifice PPV in 2015 to survive past the end of the year, so be it.

 

[Rayne]

Not shocked by this at all. Overall, the PPV model is dying across the board- trying to convince people to spend $30-$50 for three hours of programming they can download for free immediately afterwards is a pretty tough sell. (We'll save the 'morals of piracy' talk for a day where people care about the morals of piracy.) TNA's PPV's have been losers for a long time, and it's gotten to the point where they no longer even pretend to build for a PPV; Bound For Glory involved sending the B-team to Japan to apologize to the fans for the blatant theft they were about to witness.

It's been clear for a while now that TNA PPV just isn't going to work. They've likely been fulfilling the terms of their PPV contract by putting 'something' on the air- as soon as/if that's already out of the way, I wouldn't expect to see TNA on cable PPV again. (iPPV is an option TNA may explore; the days of them talking people out of $40 are emphatically done, but $15-$20 may be a price point to be both an attractive purchase and financially viable.)

I am curious how this will affect the three-month feud cycle that's been used in professional wrestling since the PPV schedule became a monthly one back in the mid-90's. (For good reason- it works.) Does TNA echo the PPV calendar by building up to 'special' episodes of Impact? Or do they try to have a Big Match every couple of weeks? No one across the professional wrestling spectrum has really figured this out; the WWE is trying and failing to get people to purchase their network for a fifth episode of RAW every month that happens to air on Sundays.

 

[rmp0012002]

Smart move. They need to start small and develop a fan base and then they can start looking at large cost promotion like PPV's.

 

[Daggdag]

TNA can't afford to not run PPV's. They get a good amount of their revenue from PPV buys.

 

[ABMorales787]

That's odd. Because I believe they still have PPV contracts to fulfill in the UK which is why they had to start doing the One Night Only brand PPV's. If they are effectively done with PPV, I hope they can at least get a 3 hour Sunday timeslot for specials on their channel. Or iPPV. There's still something special to building into one show.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Seems to be a lot of misinformation on both sides on what exactly these shows make/cost for TNA.


Bottom line is, doing away with more and more of them seems to indicate they do not make money for the company, thus, cutting them until such a time as they will prove lucrative is a smart business decision. Something TNA needs to try to turn into a habit.

 

[Reflection]

I hope they present at least two PPVs or Special shows (i.e. special not only in name but also in quality) this year. They can be Slammiversary XIII and Bound For Glory. With 6 months time between PPVs, they should be able to bring forward a show that people will care about, tune in to watch, and be happy about having bought it. Agreed, we thought the same thing (that the quality of PPVs will improve) when they dropped their number to 4 a year, but hopefully they will try to do better this time because failure means death.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The shows cost a good deal of money to put on PPV, the reports suggest that almost no one bought them, and they blew Bound For GLory up this year with one of the worst shows of the year with no effort and a big middle finger to the fans that bought it. There's no reason to keep the shows on PPV at this point and TNA needs to make sacrifices like this to stay in the position they have now. Throwing money down a hole to say you have pay per view is a horrible idea, especially now that they don't have Spike money backing them up. If you sacrifice PPV in 2015 to survive past the end of the year, so be it.

It's a far cry from 2010, isn't it? Instead of the corporate "attitude" saying: "We're gonna put our prime TV show on Monday night at 9PM and blow WWE out of the water" we seem to be seeing a company that's learned some important managerial lessons. Maybe there will be PPVs down the line; probably not 12 a year, but they might dip a toe in the water once they've established their footing with an entirely new direction.

If they can find a way to build their storylines over a longer period of time with all their efforts aimed at an occasional (& well promoted) PPV, they might be able to stir up enough interest to keep the idea alive & viable.

I hope they're successful, with each act under the new model providing contrast to the "Hogan years." Hell, maybe it'll someday be a course in Business Marketing 101 classes.

 

[rmp0012002]

I don't think they should never do them but how the company grows will dictate if they will. If they run PPV's just because WWE does right now it just isn't going to work because you'll just end up in an ECW situation where the buys don't cover the expenses and you either lose money or make very little and the company doesn't grow. If the crowds at tapings and house shows before the redo are an indication of where their starting point is then it will be quite a while before a PPV.

 

[Lowdown]

Perhaps this could be beneficial to them. If what KB said is true then it doesn't make sense to keep doing PPV's if the revenue isn't coming in from them. TNA still makes money from house shows and TV tapings, so at least it won't be putting any more of a dent the wallet. Has on what I've read and heard regarding BFG, the decision (if it's true) to stop PPV's sounds like the right call, at least in theory.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I think PPV buys across all of wrestling is slowly fading which was a reason of the WWE network, Don't know if its a mixture of people watching them for free online or people just not having as much money to spare on ppvs or lack of quality shown on todays ppvs who knows, I would still somehow hope to watch big events in TNA where the best matches are built up and looked forward to rather than just go week to week with matches exclusively on their weekly impact tv show I do think they could of done better with their lack of build and quality for their biggest show of the year bound for glory ppv also bad planning with their world title not even defended on it.