TNA Possibly dropping PPVs?

[onemandynasty08]

There is new speculation that TNA's big surprise (with Spike TV's support) is to drop PPVs and focus on wrestling specials on Spike TV. However, this has not been confirmed.

I'm not sure if TNA should drop PPVs altogether, but I do think should decrease the number of PPVs that they hold. I think they could have a pay per view every other month if anything, but I don't think they should drop them completely.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

...and how do they propose they make up for the money lost in doing so?

While I'm sure their buy rates aren't phenomenal by any stretch, they do provide the company with a measurable financial return every month, so unless these proposed "wrestling specials" on SpikeTV are going to increase their revenue in some fashion in a way the PPV's could not, I can't see how this type of thing would be a very smart move in terms of a business decision.

Reducing the PPV's to a bi-monthly schedule might help if they're looking to ease costs, but I'm not entirely sold on the idea of bailing on them until I know more about these supposed "wrestling specials" on SpikeTV.

 

[a0161613]

I like the idea. They focus on Impact plenty as it is and PPVs hold little suprises. My concern would be financially, can they afford to do this? It's a huge risk and I don't see the pay off. Their booking is so inconsistent that I dont see them being able to build solid stories.

WWE had issues after the brand split with bi-monthly PPVs. I doubt this is true and as TNA have problems elsewhere, I can't see this coming about.

 

[Mr-excitement]

So then I suspect they will run a couple of PPV's on off Sundays when the WWE has nothing going and then will begin competing a couple of SPECIALS (a la the Clash of the Champions) against Vince's weaker PPVs to try and once again steal some of the audience.

This idea I do like.

I'd be willing to give that a shot if they stick to four specials a year and take several months to book them properly. I seriously think the business suffers due to the over saturation. Pretty much the only PPV that means anything is Wrestlemania.

Other than that, what happens on Sunday at a PPV, means nothing by Tuesday morning.

 

[TNAmark]

Dropping all of the PPVs would be ludicrous and financially impractical. At this point TNA basically exists for the sole purpose of selling those PPVs. No PPVs = no TNA.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

I like Mr-excitement's idea. Having the Spike specials would be great if they manuver them between the lesser WWE PPVs (i.e. Fatal 4Way) and having annual specials like the old Clashes. The thing that gets me is that, IS TNA willing to foresake the inconsient booking/storylines and really do their work in drawing out storylines over the course of 4-5 months at a time, WHILE maintaining the remaining PPVs & the Spike specials? That's asking a lot from a company that, for the most part, tends to just abandon storylines just for the sake of it.

Also, as Mr-excitment pointed out, they do over expose themselves quite a bit. I've said plently of times that Dixie needs to be the main one who steps the hell away from the spotlight. No one truly cares about her, or what she's talking about doing. That's just one of the reasons why no one takes what she says seriously

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't look for this to happen as ppvs are a big source of revenue for TNA. I don't believe that their buyrates are fantastic by any stretch, but it does bring in money. TNA needs all the revenue it can in order to pay the big salaries of all the big names on the roster. For instance, it's said that Scott Hall makes $3,000 an appearance whereas the majority of the TNA roster makes considerably less and I know that Sting, Hogan and Flair make much more.

WCW used to run Clash of the Champions every so often on TBS back in the day when they only did about 4 or 5 ppvs a year. On the Rise and Fall of WCW DVD, Bischoff himself said that the company was losing a lot of money by having, essentially, free ppvs on television. WCW was hemoraging money and they were much stronger financially, even in the early 90s, than TNA.

Besides, there's been rumors and stories and backstage gossip about TNA cutting the number of ppvs that they do for close to 2 years now. They pop up every 4 or 5 months it seems and TNA still holds the same number of ppvs.

 

[Schizophrenic]

If they are gonna do something to the PPV's it needs to make them bi monthly and hold 6 big PPV's a year. I can see Against All Odds, LockDown, Slammiversary, Victory Road, Bound for Glory, Destination X as the ones still around IF they decided to do this. It would allow them to not rush the programs so much and make Impact more important as it would force them to make some matches for Impact pretty big.

 

[jccool420]

Is their any merit to this? I haven't read anything about wrestling specials on Spike...

From a fans standpoint itms great because itms 35 bucks less a months I have to spend...

From a business stand point, I don't see how it could help... They would lose PPV revenue and unless they actually got good ratings for these specials I don't see how they would make any money off of them... If somehow they did attract new viewers maybe they could get better sponsors and such to invest in the shows, but I don't see that happening when Impact can't even draw higher than a 1.0...

I just don't see how this would work out in their favor...

 

[Kaeden]

Well, its unconfirmed, but i've heard in various forums that TNA buy-rates are abyssal. If so, if Spike is willing to finance them, or even pay extra and really promote them, this idea could work. If Spike has enough faith in it, they can go for the 'ppv market' and drag in sweet advertising for the projected market.

Realistically, this is kinda like the music industry's situation, where CD sales are tanking, but downloads are doing well. Its so easy to stream and 'steal' PPVs, that even people who like TNA are less inclined to pay for it. If Panda Energy can convince Spike that there is viewership, then the Free TV Special might not be awful. You'd have to actually have the projected numbers to compare to teh existing TNA books to really know.

 

[Mr-excitement]

I am not sure it is a HUGE loss of income, they have to book a building, pay a crew and workers. All of this before the marketing.

I think Heyman once said it was 200k to do a PPV and that was in the 90s in a smaller venue.

If they are considering dropping them, then I suspect they are NOT making money off of them. I don't see Dixie saying, hey the PPVs are making lots of money - let's drop them.

 

[wushady]

If this is true I think it shows how bad the company is failing. They probably can't afford to do pay per views anymore with all the high priced talent and the low buy rates and ratings. It's a huge step backwards, and shows how far they are from competing with WWE.

However in the long run it could and probably will be good for the company. They wont lose as much money if they don't have to pay production cost for doing live pay per views. They'll just have a longer road a head of them before they become a major force in the wrestling business.

 

[onemandynasty08]

Decreasing PPVs isn't really a backslide for TNA technically. I mean they use to put on PPVs every week when they first got started so a decrease of a few ppvs might not be so bad. Decreasing PPVs may not actually decrease income, as people are more likely to spend money on a pay per view that features matches which actually meaning something and have value, than a pay per view with one or two matches with build up and a bunch of matches thrown together on the last IMPACT!.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I guess it all depends where the money is at. The PPVs on Spike is definitely a huge announcement if it were true, but I don't see how this announcement is going to change TNA forever. I don't see how TNA can make any money without their PPV sales. I know the buy rates aren't much, but they have to be making more money now then they ever did in the past. Maybe being on Spike TV will give them more viewership, but I don't see how TNA can afford to do it without the buy rates.