TNA Dropping PPV's From 2013 Calendar

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

According to the Wrestling Observer, TNA will be cutting down on the amount of pay-per-views in 2013, as a result of Lockdown being moved from April to March. This shift will put Lockdown, TNA's third biggest event after Slammiversary and Bound for Glory, dead in the heat of WWE's WrestleMania build-up.

The February Against All Odds pay-per-view is being removed from the schedule, so there will be a large time to build into Lockdown after Genesis in January. The same goes for No Surrender, in order to create a distance between Hardcore Justice and October's Bound for Glory pay-per-view.

TNA President Dixie Carter is reportedly looking to improve quality, rather than quantity, and has been looking to cut back on the amount of pay-per-views. The hope is that by creating a longer distance before two of their major shows, it will increase buys enough to cover for the loss of the two smaller scale events filmed at the Impact Zone in Orlando, Florida.

TL;DR - TNA is dropping Against All Odds and No Surrender to give more build-up to Lockdown and Bound for Glory.

I think this is an absolutely perfect idea. Lockdown and Bound for Glory are two of TNA's biggest events, and if they continue to host them both in larger venues, it will be well worth the risk. The "off brand" PPV's bring in what, 10,000 buys? They should be able to make that up on BFG if they put enough into ad campaigns and host it at a big enough location. I'd love for them to bring it back to Chicago. If they need more than 17,000 they can do it outdoors and have several more locations. Might be cool to see a TNA ppv modified for a ball park venue like Wrigley Field.

Anyways, I think the motivation is great, and a step in the right direction for TNA. Less PPV's means fans can save their money for the really big events, and they'll have almost two full months to build up great content for those shows. They'll be able to do bigger main events on Impact during some of those weeks, and pull off whole angles between pay-per-views. I think it will challenge the writers to stay on top of their game. And if they can't write for 8 weeks of television before a PPV, throw their ass out of the door.

It's good to see TNA making postive steps, and taking a leap of faith that they can bring in the extra income. Booking themselves a virtually unlimited amount of tickets for Lockdown was also a great idea. They can pretty much print those suckers until they run out of TNA fans. It'll be interesting to see how TNA competes with WWE now, as the shift puts Lockdown and the two month build to it, smack dab in the middle of the Road to WRestleMania. That means from January to April, we're gonna have some bad ass pro wrestling on our hands gentlemen.

 

[Limitless]

I love this, as I feel this will help them in there story telling. However They must also do a good job at the story telling, otherwise this is pointless.

What is good about this, is that they could have bigger episodes of Impact every other week or so. Title changes on Impact and reveals that don't have to wait till bound for glory and so on .....

As long as they come up with some good story telling and keep major results for big ppv's (that way we don't have another WCW) than we could see some change. Maybe not big change, but at least it is in the right direction.

 

[Albert T]

A simple idea which may very well produce fantastic results. TNA is choosing not to overextend itself in an era where the WWE is priding itself on that very trait. I hope they take that extra time to add detail and depth to whatever program they book, rather than use it as an excuse to procrastinate or to devote more time to Hogan. I am looking forward to seeing how this goes over for TNA.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

This is a really odd decision. Sacrificing revenue in hopes of making more revenue is different. Maybe the minor PPVs are losing money. Maybe they think they can charge more for the major PPVs. I wonder how the wrestlers feel losing another pay day. From a fan's perspective I doubt the PPVs will be missed but from a business perspective and from the wrestler's perspective this is a bad sign.

I hope it works. I hope they can use the extra time to build up their major events but I'm skeptical.

 

[3:16]

I think this is a risky move that can have a big payoff. If they have good story lines and good build ups it will bring more buys for their PPV's. This could bring a good change for TNA.

 

[ABMorales787]

So we're just going to ignore Victory Road? What happened to that show? Pre or post Lockdown? That's not very good reporting.

Anyway, in my opinion, it's a bit pointless to remove those PPV's. For one, an extra few weeks for BFG and Lockdown is not going to beef up ticket sales and build up will only go up if TNA does that, not the added time gap. Furthermore, these B-PPV's were basically cost free. Being in the Impact Zone meant no production budget or having to find a venue. They simply put the show on and got their PPV buyrates. Unless they plan to hold more PPV's out on the road, I really don't see much point to this.

 

[Pera]

So we're just going to ignore Victory Road? What happened to that show? Pre or post Lockdown? That's not very good reporting.

Anyway, in my opinion, it's a bit pointless to remove those PPV's. For one, an extra few weeks for BFG and Lockdown is not going to beef up ticket sales and build up will only go up if TNA does that, not the added time gap. Furthermore, these B-PPV's were basically cost free. Being in the Impact Zone meant no production budget or having to find a venue. They simply put the show on and got their PPV buyrates. Unless they plan to hold more PPV's out on the road, I really don't see much point to this.

I see where you are coming from and it may entirely be down to improving their product but B-PPV's aren't exactly 'cost free'. They'll certainly be paying the wrestlers for the appearance (Guys like Hogan are on reportedly 25K an appearance) so it's still a hefty price tag.

They surely wouldnt be cutting PPV's if they were making significant money off them. If you can deal with losing a couple of thousand dollars of profit by dropping a PPV, while potentially gaining some dough through a larger build for a PPV outside the Impact zone, then it's certainly a worthwhile risk.

Hell, it may even allow them to hold more B-PPVs outside the Impact zone which would definitely provide them with a heap more buys. There are reasons why Lockdown, Slammi and BFG reap in a heap more buys, simply because of the crowd and 'big-time' feel. If they can do that with some of their other PPV's (maybe hold something like Final Resolution outside the IZ next year) then they would me making more money anyways.

Lets see how this works out.

 

[HBsam31]

I like this idea. I think there have been too many ppvs from both companies for a long time now. This will give TNA more time to build and tell good stories leading into the ppvs. Lets hope they actually do use the time to build properly though. It is surprising that they would risk losing revenue though. It must be possible that these ppvs that they are dropping are losing money though, but who knows. Hopefully cutting two out will draw more attendance and buys to the remaining ppvs.

 

[Weems2k]

I guess TNA is doing better financially than what everyone on here thinks. To cut out that extra revenue, and hold events in bigger places must mean something. Of course only SpikeTV, and TNA know the real figures. Hopefully this means bigger Impacts on the road away from the ImCrap Zone.

 

[Papa Pillman]

I think this is a step in the right direction, but they should actually go further and cut out a couple more, something like...

Genesis in mid-January
Lockdown in early March
Sacrifice in late April
Slammiversary in early June
Dest-X in mid-July
HardCore Justice in late August
BFG in mid-October
Final Resolution in early December

That would allow adequate spacing for build-ups by holding a PPV about every six weeks and adding a couple extra Impact broadcasts to build complete cards for those events, while still keeping a familiar PPV layout for the fans.

Then they should continue to do all Impact's live from the Impact Zone, while doing atleast six, if not all eight, PPVs on the road.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

I have been demanding less PPVs for years.

It's a good move. Focus on building up the card. I think it works really well.

Now, if the WWE can follow suit.

 

[braveh]

This is a really odd decision. Sacrificing revenue in hopes of making more revenue is different. Maybe the minor PPVs are losing money. Maybe they think they can charge more for the major PPVs. I wonder how the wrestlers feel losing another pay day. From a fan's perspective I doubt the PPVs will be missed but from a business perspective and from the wrestler's perspective this is a bad sign.

I hope it works. I hope they can use the extra time to build up their major events but I'm skeptical.

According to Dave Metlzer they lose money on all the PPVs other than BFG, Lockdown and Slammiversary.

This is the perfect decision for TNA. Longer story arcs, main event wrestler on Impact. Nobody wants to see Austin Aries cut a promo, everyone wants to see him wrestle on Spike.

 

[Papa Pillman]

Nobody wants to see Austin Aries cut a promo, everyone wants to see him wrestle on Spike.

I disagree, I think Aries is gold on the mic. The line about Brooke's desk on Thursday was great. He's one of the upper echelon guys in the company with the stick. This mini angle involving him, Ray, and Hogan should make for great speaking exchanges.

But I do want to see him wrestle as well, and in a main spot on the card. That's why this past Thursday was booked very well as far as Aries is concerned.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

According to Dave Metlzer they lose money on all the PPVs other than BFG, Lockdown and Slammiversary.

If this is true they shouldn't stop with dumping two. Were they stuck in a PPV contract or something? Regardless, PPVs are no place to grow a company with so much overhead. There are tons more media outlets where resources can be used.

 

[TLDD]

Excellent move by TNA. The reason being is I've always like many believed that 12 ppv's a year is to many. This may also help their buyrates out in the long run.

 

[Dirk]

Wow, this is a refreshing move. To see anybody going less commercial these days is unheard of. I just hope TNA benefits from this gambit, because I really wouldn't want to lose them.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

I don't know if TNA will benefit from this but I do know we will.

Some of these PPVs were just pointless and were basically a half-assed version of iMPACT with less promos. Usually they have the best or quite interesting storylines going into Lockdown or BFG and they're kind of hindered by the PPVs beforehand. This gives them more time to be creative and not force themselves to do something for the PPV.

I see it as a good move. Will it make them more money? Who knows? They have to try and I'm glad they're even entertaining such notions.

 

[Mustang Sally]

This is a really odd decision. Sacrificing revenue in hopes of making more revenue is different. Maybe the minor PPVs are losing money. Maybe they think they can charge more for the major PPVs. I wonder how the wrestlers feel losing another pay day.

Combine that with Dixie's pronouncement that "TNA President Dixie Carter is reportedly looking to improve quality, rather than quantity" and reading between the lines becomes pretty easy, no?

WWE is caught in the trap of "more is better" and has bombarded us with as much TV programming and pay-per-views as they can squeeze on the calendar. If they thought they could cram in a PPV every two weeks, they'd do it. On regular TV, just when some of us figured they had gone once too often to the well by extending Raw to three hours, they come up with a 1-hour program on Wednesday. Jeez.

Of course, TNA is in an entirely different situation. After finding out a couple years ago they couldn't do what WWE does, they started functioning within their limitations instead of pushing things too far. That was smart. Now, if they're reducing the number of PPVs and trying to make it seem as if the move best serves the fans, it's for PR purposes, nothing else. Again.....smart.

If Dixie was making money with a PPV every month, she'd continue doing it. I find it hard to believe TNA is cutting down simply because they want to improve quality by sacrificing quantity. TNA doesn't have to divulge financial information, so they don't.....and all of you who claim to "know" what their fiscal condition is are only guessing. This cost-cutting move gives more of an indication.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

This is a really odd decision. Sacrificing revenue in hopes of making more revenue is different. Maybe the minor PPVs are losing money. Maybe they think they can charge more for the major PPVs. I wonder how the wrestlers feel losing another pay day. From a fan's perspective I doubt the PPVs will be missed but from a business perspective and from the wrestler's perspective this is a bad sign.

I hope it works. I hope they can use the extra time to build up their major events but I'm skeptical.

I choose to see it as a good sign.
Lockdown: 3,000
Slammiversary: 5,500
Bound for Glory: 2,900

The other 9 PPV's in 2012 drew (or will draw) 1,100 people. You get rid of two of those PPV's in 2013, and that's really only 2,200 people for live events. Lockdown 2013 is going to be a huge event, and if pushed correctly they could possibly double, maybe even triple this year's number. You never know. Even if it's only a moderate success rather than a big deal, they'll still make up their live event revenue for the two PPV's they cut.

It's really the PPV buys from home viewers you want to worry about. I can't find any info on No Surrender, but I do know the other did around 7,000. So let's just 14,000 to play it safe. So the question becomes, how do you make up for 14,000 PPV buys? Well, first of all, you do an entire year of live shows. Impact numbers have been generally up since switching to live. Spike is extremely happy with TNA these days, and were the people originally pressing them to go live every single week. If TNA can bring in bigger crowds and sell more merch by leaving the Impact Zone in 2013, and they draw bigger crowds at their three big PPV's, that may be enough to close the gap.

I don't think it's going to hurt TNA's bottom line. All they need is to step up their game for one or two bigger events, and they can make a ton of money. Plus, who's to say the wrestlers take a loss if TNA doesn't do as well? Companies have to take risks and sometimes that means a temporary revenue loss for growing pains; lord knows the Carter family has the money to keep the ball rolling. You gotta spend money to make money. I don't think that Dixie Carter - criticize as people may - nor her investors would be so balls to the walls about this decisions if it was going to screw the business.

It's a long shot, but I also think with a two month absence, TNA might generate a few buys from people who normally torrent and/or stream the events. Less is more, as they say. And with two extra months to build up to big events, those who just watch Impact might be intrigued enough to actually spend cash on the PPV. And honestly, when TNA goes to larger venues, they don't have trouble bringing in good crowds. Those UK episodes were F'ing fantastic.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

So we're just going to ignore Victory Road? What happened to that show? Pre or post Lockdown? That's not very good reporting.

Anyway, in my opinion, it's a bit pointless to remove those PPV's. For one, an extra few weeks for BFG and Lockdown is not going to beef up ticket sales and build up will only go up if TNA does that, not the added time gap. Furthermore, these B-PPV's were basically cost free. Being in the Impact Zone meant no production budget or having to find a venue. They simply put the show on and got their PPV buyrates. Unless they plan to hold more PPV's out on the road, I really don't see much point to this.

I disagree, based on the fact that one of the most common trends in wrestling right now is the complaint that three weeks is simply not enough time to establish effective, meaningful feuds that then carry over into monthly Pay-Per-View matches that fans are expected to pay to see. If you put stock into the reported numbers TNA does in terms of buyrates, canceling a couple Pay-Per-Views is actually a smart business decision — provided the report citing the reason for it being longer build times toward Lockdown and Bound For Glory — their two yearly cash cows.

This is what you would call addition by subtraction. Sometimes, to get better, you actually have to get "worse".

Scrapping two D-rate PPV months should prove to pay great dividends for the buyrates for Lockdown and Bound For Glory, and with Lockdown being in the Alamodome this year (seating 70,000+), TNA needs to build as much as they can toward that event to get an early look at how the return(s) might fare.

 

[midgensa]

I think that overall ... this is a sign that TNA needs to cut costs and they do not feel that these PPVs are paying for themselves. There is no doubt that if TNA thought they were making money by having these events they would keep them.

As a fan though ... I love the less PPVs approach because I think it will give them a chance to better build for the bigger events. I don't know if it is going to translate into bigger buyrates ... but it MIGHT and that will be a very good thing in the long run for fans and for the company.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

There is little to no cost associated with putting on PPV's like these two being cancelled, because neither is done on the road. They are almost exclusively done at the IMPACT Zone, which is a cost-free "expense" for TNA. I can't cite for you the exactitudes of what they pay out, or why, but I know for certain that they cannot charge a gate because the studio is located within the grounds of Universal Studios. It'd be open to all park goers.

I don't doubt TNA is "making money" off even their shittiest PPV's — what I doubt is that they are particularly impressed with how much, and that they are going to use this 10 PPV format as a bit of an experiment to see what longer build times can do to increase fan interest and ticket sales as a correlation going into their two biggest PPV's of the year. If they can double or triple their buy rates as a result, or see a substantial return on gate draw, I wouldn't be shocked to see them drop the number of PPV's they do a year to 8, or even as low as 6, as a means to adapt the same long build formula for each, with the hope that the longer builds in turn create more buys on less PPVs. Classic addition by subtraction example.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

There is little to no cost associated with putting on PPV's like these two being cancelled, because neither is done on the road. They are almost exclusively done at the IMPACT Zone, which is a cost-free "expense" for TNA. I can't cite for you the exactitudes of what they pay out, or why, but I know for certain that they cannot charge a gate because the studio is located within the grounds of Universal Studios. It'd be open to all park goers.

I don't know about that. You obviously have to pay the talent. You also have to pay the rest of the crew. I would imagine the PPV or cable companies want something for reserving the Sunday night spot. It costs money to promote the events. You give up additional advertising time for Spike by promoting the event.

Are you saying anyone with a Universal Studios pass can attend an Impact or PPV show without charge? Do they charge anyone for attending?

I don't doubt TNA is "making money" off even their shittiest PPV's — what I doubt is that they are particularly impressed with how much, and that they are going to use this 10 PPV format as a bit of an experiment to see what longer build times can do to increase fan interest and ticket sales as a correlation going into their two biggest PPV's of the year. If they can double or triple their buy rates as a result, or see a substantial return on gate draw, I wouldn't be shocked to see them drop the number of PPV's they do a year to 8, or even as low as 6, as a means to adapt the same long build formula for each, with the hope that the longer builds in turn create more buys on less PPVs. Classic addition by subtraction example.

Some other posters in this thread seem to think differently regarding profitiability. I'm not going to pretend to know.

The whole addition by subtraction is a nice thought but it is much easier said then done. Regardless, they should promote the shit out of this move to their current fan base all over Impact. Say they are doing it out of appreciation to all the fans that watch Impact. Say they understand that the fans deserve the best for their viewing dollar and TNA is doing this out of respect and so that TNA can put out what they believe is their best product regardless of their cost.

Literally shove this "sacrifice" they are making down the fans throats.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I kind of like this idea. Instead of dropping just 2 (3 if you’re really paying attention), I would have just went ahead and dropped 6. Then in the months without a PPV, I’d throw in a special episode of Impact. Those are the months where Gut Check, Open Fight Night, and Championship Thursday could be used. They could even have Tournaments in the months without a PPV to determine the number one contenders for the following PPV.

Feb – Victory Road (TNA’s 1st PPV)
Apr – Lockdown (TNA’s Survivor Series)
Jun – Slammiversary (TNA’s SummerSlam)
Aug – Destination X (TNA’s Royal Rumble…maybe more like Money In The Bank, but whatever)
Oct – Bound for Glory (TNA’s WrestleMania)
Dec – Unbreakable (I couldn’t decide which of the other 7 PPVs I’d keep, so I decided to go with the one they didn’t keep)

This gives each of the 6 PPVs 2 months build. Oh and no more Impact Zone PPVs please. Take all 6 of these on the road.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I like that TNA is dropping two of their PPV events. It's not like No Surrender or Against All Odds had anything that truly set them apart from the other PPV brands. I think they will end up having the winner of the Bound For Glory series announced a month earlier now at Hardcore Justice to not only raise the importance of that particular PPV brand, but also to give the main event feud of Bound For Glory more time to develop. Removing Against All Odds might help Genesis a little as well. If it is the only show before Lockdown on the calendar then it will make it appeal more to fans. It can be used as a time to begin new feuds, which would be a nice take on the name's meaning. The more intense feuds can carry into Lockdown for a steel cage match that they deserve. I'd consider using it as a time to debut bigger names who have joined the federation as well, that PPV should be about new beginnings given its name.

I'd even suggest they move Sacrifice to November and get rid of Turning Point. Turning Point is just another generic brand that does nothing to stand out, whereas Sacrifice could gain more attention if the Sacrifice stipulation where people other than the champions had to put something up for grabs in a match were to return. This would be the perfect time to work a match such as the one where AJ Styles lost the opportunity to challenge for the World Championship until Bound For Glory, he sacrificed that opportunity. This opens up more time for Slammiversary, the third big show on TNA's calendar. Now if only they could make the rest of the lesser PPV brand's more unique as well. They could always bring back Feast or Fired and King of the Mountain and make each of those unique to respective shows or something. Glad to see TNA taking this risk and I hope it goes well for them.