Should TNA go to a 'Big Four' PPV format?

[It's...Baylariat!]

Here me out. I know folks say that the major money comes from PPV buyrates and such...but right now, TNA's not drawing that kind of money. Their PPV's look just like iMPACT, because they're in the same building. So here's what kind of plan I'd propose to bring TNA off the ground so to speak and even make them a profit.

• Reduce the PPV's per year to four. That's a PPV every 90 days. Not bad at all because you can build storylines like crazy and not have to worry about rushing a potentially great angle because it needs to be ready for a PPV match in only 3 weeks.
• In doing that, you can actually take the TNA PPV's to larger venues and draw bigger money at the gate and possibly even bigger buyrates. You only run four major PPV's a year, so the money you spend putting on a PPV would decrease and profit would come in.
• It also gives opportunities to actually have great matches on TV, and not have to worry about 'putting PPV quality matches on TV too often'. You create a rivalry, have it build and build, and culminate with major blowoffs at the PPV's. And it's not farfetched to have a TNA title match on an iMPACT every once in a while. Make title matches a special occurrence instead of happening twice a month possibly.
• The four PPV's you could use are Slammiversary, Genesis, Lockdown, and Final Resolution. You make Slammiversary into the 'Starrcade' of TNA, make Genesis be the first PPV of the year, put Lockdown after Slammiversary, and Final Resolution will be the final PPV of the year.

This could work. What are your thoughts? Would you use MORE PPV's? Could this profit TNA?

 

[Megatron]

While your thought is good, you have to remember that TNA is pushing BFG as it's 'Wrestlemania' so it would have to be included if they were to go to a big four. However, I'd rather like to see a bi-monthly format, with having a PPV every other month. That's because there'd be a good 5-6 weeks between each one, and you'd still get a pretty decent turnout. Here's what I was thinking:

February: Against All Odds
April: Lockdown
June: Slammiversary
August: Victory Road/Hard Justice (one or other)
October: Bound For Glory
December: Final Resolution

There you would have your Big Names (Lockdown, Slammiversary, BFG), with some other ones in there as well. TNA isn't big enough to be holding 13 PPV's a year, when many of them aren't special anyways.

 

[Fan_of_Wrestling]

I like the idea of reducing the TNA PPVs, maybe 4 is too little, maybe 6... I'd throw Destination X (as a true X-division affair) and bound for glory. That would give them roughly the same amount of time WWE has building toward the PPVs, with there two big shows.

I also think the more BIG arena shows they can pull off will really help the overall look of the shows, and if this is how they do it I'd be happy.

I always find it a shame how rushed into TNA PPV main events are, so this should solve that problem.

 

[onemandynasty08]

Yeah decreasing the ppvs would be good, but I like the idea of 6 ppvs rather than 4. I think it should be Bound For Glory, Slammiversary, LockDown, Genesis, and 2 other ones... Maybe Hard Justice and Victory Road.

Even though it seems as if they'd be losing money, they'd be making more, because people would be more likely to buy a ppv that has good matches and that has a story behind it, then one where matches are thrown together at the last minute. Also they might actually be able to travel for every ppv, being that they would say dropping 6 of their regular ppvs.

 

[TNAmark]

TNA already has a big four - Genesis, Lockdown, Slammiversary and Bound for Glory. Cutting the PPV's down to 4 a year would probably increase the buy-rates for the remaining PPV's but it certainly wouldn't triple the buys, which is what would need to happen to make up for the eliminated PPV's. TNA has spent the last 5 years trying to build Bound for Glory as their biggest event of the year so it might not be very prudent to drop it in favor of Slammiversary, though I do prefer the Slammiversary name and as a celebration of the anniversary of the launch of TNA the event holds more historical significance.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

No, i don't think it would work...you see wwe they slowly built ppv's they had one a year, then 2, then 3 until they had settled for 4, then they added a 5th, KOTR...it was like that til 1995, then they just started using IYH....

what TNA have done, is since 2005, they decided they wanted to put 12 ppvs a year..just like a promotion does...that was a mistake back then..

if they did have 4 a year, i think the 4 would be Bound for Glory, Lockdown, Victory Road and Slammiversary!!

I took notice that TNAmark said Genesis was one of the big 4, i think victory road is more of a big four..it has been more important...

 

[CuddleBuns84]

Well first of all, it doesn't matter which PPVs are which. They just need to reduce them. Maybe even re-name a couple on the way. The idea of 4 for now, would make sense. Wait till popularity increase then go for 6.

Not also that, but get a marketing campaign for these PPVs as well. But 4 right now, and it doesn't matter which ones they are, as long as there is a 90 day build up, you can get more buys.

TNA should worry about selling those 4 monthly PPVs a year, and doing more traveling for revenue. Too many PPVs right now ruin the product as it is,because it's a small company. Since it's a small company doing 12 plus PPV's a year, it shows off it's roster to the main event scene really early, and cut down on the quality of PPV feud.

So 4 is good, 4 is all you need.

 

[GameOver]

Not going to happen. The idea has been discussed for WWE aswell for many years going back to once every 2-4 months, but they make alot of money off PPV buys

In TNA's case money wise they'd would be saving money in the short term on producing the extra show with little return, but they'd be losing the opportunity for extra viewers in an off month and realistically til they pick there game up PPV's wise it wont matter if it's there's a PPV in that month they'd stil lbe losing money on what they could be

As for what PPV is there number 1 etc. Every PPV according to there commentators and promo's is there hottest PPV of the year, and Bound For Glory and Slammiversary are both said to be there WrestleMania. LOL Here's a tip, stop promoting WWE and focus on letting the fans decide what is the biggest PPV of the year or better yet, whatever is the first PPV they produced is the granddaddy of there PPV's

I'd go with the one every 2 month schedule, WWE should do the same purely to give more time for fueds, one per month is way too quick these days, soon as one is over there's 4 matches on average to build a fued for the next PPV, provided it's not just an extension of the fueds that was already going on.

But it all comes down to money so isn't gonna happen any time soon

 

[gd]

First off, Bound For Glory would have to be on there. It's their biggest PPV of the year, or so they say. It has included a 64 year old Sting in the main event literally every year, so you just can't be sure.

As for cutting down the PPVs, I'm sure it would increase the product as a whole. PPVs people actually care about, Impacts seeming more important and meaningful. It'd just be better. However money wise, I just don't think it'd work out. I'm sure they're making out far better with 12 or so PPVs a year, most of them being quite mediocre. They'd have to have incrediblely greater sales for each of every one of their big 4 PPVs, and that just isn't going to happen.

 

[Syborgg]

The idea is good, one thing they could do to kind of supplement the lack of ppv's is to have special Impacts. Like 3 hour episodes that are Live and not taped, but only do it in the months that don't have ppv's or somewhere in the middle between ppv's. I mean if the "lesser" ppv's are just a commercial free longer version of Impact then why not do it this way? They could boast title matches or gimmick matches that will spike interest. However I think the biggest thing TNA needs is another weekly show, but with the low ratings it's hard to get Spike to justify another slot for them. Maybe the "less is more" approach could help raise said ratings.

 

[rammsteiner]

In my opinion, they have too many PPV's

They tried to compete too soon with the WWE. It takes time, a lot of time, and growth to even come close to the WWE's level.

Cut it down to either four or six PPV's a year. They can build up proper feuds and matches with all the time they have.

They can also build up characters properly. No more using the short term wrestler who only comes into the company for a few months and then he's gone. They can build up a guy properly and slowly on Impact and give the audience the time to connect with the character, his persona, and his feud with another wrestler.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

First off, Bound For Glory would have to be on there. It's their biggest PPV of the year, or so they say. It has included a 64 year old Sting in the main event literally every year, so you just can't be sure.

As for cutting down the PPVs, I'm sure it would increase the product as a whole. PPVs people actually care about, Impacts seeming more important and meaningful. It'd just be better. However money wise, I just don't think it'd work out. I'm sure they're making out far better with 12 or so PPVs a year, most of them being quite mediocre. They'd have to have incrediblely greater sales for each of every one of their big 4 PPVs, and that just isn't going to happen.

I've always noticed they say Slammiversary's their main attraction. Bound for Glory would be fine to include in there, too. Make it the last PPV of the year. But to me, it would work better for TNA. Less is more. And they'd spend less money and make more of it. The PPV a month thing is a money racket. If a product's established, then they'll typically make their money back on the PPV no matter what's on it.

TNA's not that established and their best bet would be to go to a format where they can work on storylines and not hot shot booking. That is what leads to the demise of the biggest promotions. You put a PPV quality match on free TV. Instead of teasing an encounter and making them tune in to watch the PPV when they finally smack each other around.

 

[shattered dreams]

The thing is that because of their deal in the impact zone I doubt there are really that many costs associated with making a PPV there. So it is kind of a why not make one no matter the weak buy rate situation, it is still money for a company that needs it. Moving PPVs to other venues is going to cost more than doing them in the impact zone while subtracting PPVs will also decrease income. I just find it unlikely that TNA can make more money by taking both of those hits with the only supposed improvement is better build. If TNA has proved anything over the past few years it is that quality is merely a factor in purchases/ratings and unfortunately it is not that big of one.

 

[akash]

definately a big no and their are alot points for it.firstly four ppv cant make up for buys of three ppv's.secondly they are doing quiet well in numbers atleast making profit.surely they can take big 4 outside the impact zone but a four ppv idea is surely a failure both financialy and by companys reputation.

 

[TheAnimal]

Its a good idea on paper, but they need all the PPVs to make them money, even the PPVs they have now dont draw a lot anyway so they need all of them to maximise their income. It probably wont increase their audience really either. At this point they want to expand as a company, and although it, in theory, would increase the programming quality, it may not increase the audience.

I like the idea though, we hopefully would see more focused programming and feuds.

 

[llennellV3]

I'd really like to see long build ups culminating in like a 4 hour PPV every 2 months. I think Impact would benefit from it (quality wise) SLIGHTLY improving their ratings too. But there are too many factors
that could help or hurt TNA that I dont think they should try it. I mean the idea sounds good, but we really don't know how well TNA can produce 2 months storylines, or more importantly how well will people take long term storylines after they have gotten used to wrestling moving so fast. And than rematches would take 2 extra months, unless they have title rematches on impact. Also money, I think right now they are making more profit even with low ppv buys. IDK.

The money they spent on Hogan/ Bisshof/ RVD, they should had invested in upgrading the impact zone, their production team, and also on better advertising. I think Daniels, AJ, Joe, Kurt, MMG, Beer Money, Doug Williams,ODB, Awesome Kong and others could had elevated TNA more if used right...I think back then it your idea would had worked better to build those guys into stars.

 

[DigitalNight]

Breaking it down to six pay-per-view events would be nice. I will let you all argue over which names are chosen. You could even raise the prices by like $5 to make it seem more "epic" (note, I dont know the current pricing right off the top of my head.)

Also, allowing ReAction to have "Dark Matches" (even though they are televised... meh) would make for good fuel for a feud.

Examples:
- Have GenMe call out MCMG or London Brawling to prove their God has a bigger winkie than their opponents with a Falls Count Anywhere match or something of the sort.

-Have "They" do whatever "They" are doing somewhere in the corner, only to have it disrupted by whoever hates "They" the most at the time. This pushes two/four members into the ring & Hogan calls for the ref & the bell.

 

[Kenny Powers]

A big four format for the PPVs would probably be better then what TNA has now. It would even be better then having live television PPV specials every month too. I think the big 4 could be Genesis in January, Lockdown in April, Slammiversary in June, and Bound For Glory in October. I think TNA could hold maybe 2 3 hour television specials as well. One in August and one in December. 4 or 5 PPVs may benefit TNA in the long run with a live television special. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have Impact go live on Thursday before every major PPV.

 

[I_Am_Electro_Boy]

I do think that TNA needs to reduce the amount of PPVs that they have a year, but not 4 PPVs maybe 6 then they can still build up a pretty good rivalry without the rivalry getting boring. Also this may leave more money for TNA s they can have the PPVs in a different arena than Impact!, the PPVs could all be in one arena but they just need to be in a different arena than Impact!.

PPVs (biggest to smallest):
BFG,
Slammiversary,
Lockdown,
Victory Road,
Destination X,
Final Resolution.

 

[nailerz]

as long as there all out of that shitty impact zone

 

[Dagger Dias]

The problem isn't TNA's number of PPV events. They are doing it right by having one each month. WWE could learn something from that. TNA should instead keep each PPV they have and promote them better. Traveling outside the Impact Zone for all of them would help too. People aren't going to fly out to the Impact Zone just for a PPV if they live out of state. Going to a "Big Four" format would not benefit TNA because at this point they need the money they get from each PPV buy. They are much better off improving their promoting instead of deleting any of their events or adding new ones. Monthly shows with much better promoting will help them tremendously.

 

[Jeremy5144]

I'm just throwing it out there I haven't read all the posts yet but has anyone considered in going with 4-6 TNA pay per views to have them attempt to try and make a deal with a pay network such as Showtime ala what Strikeforce has accomplished. This way they can promote their talent on a stage in the Impact Zone and not seem as if a person is wasting their money for example on No Surrender where they're crowning #1 contenders for a match at Bound for Glory. I think if you did 4 specials on Showtime while doing 4 live specials on Spike ala a Whole Fn Show format could give TNA enough time to promote a 34 dollar pay-per-view and give it more merit as what has been nicely done with Lockdown and Bound for Glory. I wonder if anyone would think adding a partner such as Showtime would be beneficial for TNA and for Showtime?

 

[MarchingOnTogether]

Every PPV should be outside of the Impact Zone in arenas of about 3 or 4 thousand like the arenas used for Lockdown and BFG watching a TNA PPV is just like watching Impact (with the exception of BFG and Lockdown), make PPVs look important. Also a Live Impact before each PPV should help get the buys up. I think these could be the biggest reasons PPV buys are so low. Yeah this will cost more money but they should be able to gain money by charging for tickets at Impact tapeings. Also prices for PPVs should go up by $5 as already said. Okay the buys aren't good for TNA PPVs but I can see the same buys if it goes up by just a few dollars.

I also agree that Slammiversary should be TNA's no.1 PPV. It makes more sense to have the anniversary PPV as no.1, and the name Slammiversary sounds better than Bound For Glory IMO. I don't think it is too late for TNA to make this switch they are still unknown by so many wrestling fans. This would work best if TNA talk about the history of Slammiversary and how it marks TNAs anniversary PPV. Whilst still building BFG as a huge PPV not once saying it is their Super Bowl, World Series, no.1 PPV ect. in 2011. Then by 2012 have all the hype about TNAs 10 year anniversary. And then calling Slammiversary TNAs no.1 and most important Pay Per View.

Now on to the question, I would like to see TNA cut down on their number of PPVs but I am going to agree with those who said TNA should have 6 PPVs instead of 4. Now I don't know if this would result in TNA losing money or not, but it would really help the product overall. This is the new list of PPVs I would like to see.

Destination X

Lockdown

Slammiversary

No Surrender

Bound For Glory

Final Resolution

 

[LSN80]

I think it's an excellent idea. Buyrates havent exactly been stellar anyway, so going to four PPV's a year may coup the same amount if the build is done properly.

To do so, they would need to do more shows like "The Whole F'N show." Three hour shows that have nothing but wrestling on them, and the like. At least once a month, to make up for the "lost" airtime due to less PPV's. I don't think it would hurt the product as a whole to cut Reaction once a month, or move Impact to 8 once a month.

So yes, I think it could work. Id definitely keep Bound for Glory, Lockdown, Slammiversary and Genesis. Those seem to be their four biggest PPV's, so thats what Id use. If they do a monthly live 3 hour special as well, this is a viable option.

 

[Tech N9ne]

I don't think so. I think the number of PPV's per year is somewhat irrelevant to the issue if the matches and angles at the PPV deliver.

That is the thing. I know it would be argued that the matches and feuds would be hotter at PPV's if there was less PPV's overall. But I think things could be a little more spiced up with more of the element of surprise worked in.

I think what is truly working against TNA is promising so much before PPV's, as well as Impact and then not delivering. That is part of the problem. If someone is tuning in for something specific to happen, especially when the owners of the company say, "Tune in for something BIG"... And then nothing happens....... It is going to lower people's opinion of said show, because everyone was expecting more.